Question 2

From the Global Politics Guide: The second question tests application of knowledge to the context of a source/sources. Students should primarily focus on the source/ sources but should also draw on other supporting examples from their study of global politics, where relevant.

Question 2 tests Assessment Objective 2 (AO2): Application and Analysis, in particular, using your knowledge to analyse a Source. The command term you will most often encounter will be "explain" but you may also see "analyse", "distinguish" or "suggest".

The command terms to look out for in this question are:

Analyse – break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure

Distinguish – make clear the differences between two or more concepts or items

Explain – give a detailed account including reasons or causes

Suggest – Propose a solution, hypothesis or other possible answer

1. In order to "explain" or "analyse" you will need to go beyond a brief point to form response. In other words, question 2 requires more depth to your response.

2. Use your highlighter when you read the question to highlight the what exactly you should be doing when constructing your response.

3. Marks: Four marks

4. Length: Take no longer than 10 minutes for this question.

5. Structure:

• Two paragraphs, two to three sentences each. Each paragraph is worth two marks each for a total of four marks

• Leave a line between each paragraph so that it is clear that you have made two points.

• Like question 1, using quotes in this question is acceptable but for this question should be seen as more of a "must do". However, like question 1, they should be kept short, no more than the 4-5 word range, and seamlessly incorporated into your response. Again, examiners want to see if you understand the text, not that you are good at plucking quotes that correlate to the question that has been asked.

SOURCE C

Adapted from “Paris climate change agreement: the world’s greatest diplomatic success”, The Guardian, a UK daily newspaper, (2015).

Until recently, climate diplomacy has challenged US presidents. The three presidents before Barack Obama struggled to reconcile domestic and international pressures, including from close allies who pressed the United States for action. The US was unable to commit to emission reduction goals necessary for effective global action. The absence of the US – the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, and the wealthiest nation – weakened global climate negotiations, creating a diplomatic stalemate and blocking global progress.

Since then, three factors have emerged that a motivated president has been able to exploit. For the first time US emissions are decreasing as a result of market forces and government policies, enabling the US to take credit for progress and to commit to further reductions that would have seemed unrealistic just a decade ago. Fears that emission control would make US industry less competitive have been overcome thanks to increased cooperation between the US and China. Thirdly a new international plan calls for countries to make commitments that will not, this time, be held as binding under international law. This has created a more flexible negotiating environment and laid the groundwork for an agreement with the US.

SAMPLE QUESTION 2: using Source C and one example you have studied, explain the reasons why international co-operation may be problematic for some states.

This response received 4/4, though it doesn't follow exactly the format and structure I'd like to see, it is a reasonably good response. You can see how the student has chosen an example from the Source (though a short, snappy quote would work even better) and you can see how they effectively analysed it (probably too much so, which each point worth only two marks each he or she didn't likely need to do this much explanation/analysis. The student has also chosen an excellent example from his or her studies and done a great job of using it to specifically answer the question. 

This question was answered well by most candidates who were able to explain both from the source and their own knowledge, reasons co-operation can be problematic.

Some candidates would be advised to structure their responses in a clearer manner. It would be advisable, for instance, to separate their answer to question 2 – a paragraph for evidence based from the source and a further paragraph with evidence from their own knowledge.