External assessment · SL and HL
Paper 1
Understand, analyse, compare and evaluate political sources.
Paper 1 is a source-based examination taken by both SL and HL students. It assesses your understanding of the common Core topics and your ability to work critically with political sources.
You will answer four compulsory structured questions using four sources. The sources may include written texts, images, political cartoons, diagrams, tables or infographics.
The questions become progressively more demanding. You begin by showing that you understand a source, then apply knowledge to analyse another source, compare two sources and finally synthesize source evidence with your own relevant Global Politics knowledge.
Paper 1 is not only a reading test
It tests whether you can identify political meaning, analyse claims, recognize perspectives and use evidence selectively to answer the exact question.
Paper 1 at a glance
| Question | Marks | Main skill |
|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | 3 | Understanding one source |
| Question 2 | 4 | Applying knowledge to analyse one source |
| Question 3 | 6 | Comparing and/or contrasting two sources |
| Question 4 | 12 | Evaluating sources and synthesizing them with own knowledge |
Questions 1–3 are marked using question-specific analytical markschemes. Question 4 is also assessed using holistic markbands.
Answer the precise question — not everything visible in the source
Every question identifies a particular issue, claim, concept or relationship. Your task is to select only the source evidence and knowledge that address that focus.
A source may contain many useful details, but a detail earns credit only when it helps answer the question being asked.
Underline three things before writing
- the command term
- the political focus
- the source or sources you must use
If a question asks about the effectiveness of non-violence, comparisons about cost, popularity or legitimacy are relevant only when they help explain effectiveness.
Read sources as political evidence
Content
- What does the source state or show?
- What is the central claim?
- What evidence is used?
- What is emphasized or omitted?
Origin
- Who produced the source?
- What kind of actor or stakeholder are they?
- When and where was it produced?
Purpose and audience
- Why was it produced?
- Who was expected to read or view it?
- Was it intended to inform, persuade, justify, criticize or mobilize?
Perspective
- Which values, interests or assumptions shape the source?
- Whose perspective is represented?
- Which perspectives are absent?
Context
- What political situation helps explain the source?
- Does the date or political environment affect its meaning?
Value and limitation
- What can this source help us understand?
- What can it not establish by itself?
- Which claims require corroboration?
Do not label a source simply "reliable" or "unreliable".
Evaluate what the source is useful for, what its limitations are, and how its origin, purpose, context and perspective affect its value.
There is no requirement to write a separate mechanical evaluation paragraph in every response. Source evaluation should be connected to the argument and the question.
Use reading time strategically
Use any separate reading time provided under the current examination arrangements to understand the question demands before trying to memorize every detail in the sources.
- Read all four questions.
- Identify the command term and political focus of each question.
- Note mentally which source or sources belong to each question.
- Read the sources with those questions in mind.
- Identify the main claim and perspective of each source.
- Begin planning the short answer to Question 1 mentally.
Once writing time begins:
- underline key words in the questions
- mark relevant evidence in each source
- note possible comparison points for Question 3
- identify source evidence and own knowledge for Question 4
Question 1 — 3 marks
Show that you understand the source
Question 1 tests understanding of one source. It may ask you to identify, describe, summarize or interpret information presented in a text, image, political cartoon, diagram, table or infographic.
A strong answer:
- follows the exact command term
- refers directly to the source
- selects distinct and relevant details
- explains visual or numerical information accurately
- avoids adding unnecessary outside knowledge
- remains concise and focused
For visual sources, consider
- title or caption
- symbols
- labels
- scale or proportions
- actors represented
- relationships between visual elements
- intended political message
For data sources, consider
- labels and units
- overall pattern
- significant differences
- highest and lowest values
- changes over time
- anomalies
- what the data does and does not demonstrate
Do not rely on a rigid rule such as "one sentence per mark". The question-specific markscheme determines how marks are awarded.
Question 2 — 4 marks
Use knowledge to explain the source
Question 2 tests your ability to apply Global Politics knowledge when analysing a source.
You may be asked to explain a political term, a concept, a claim, a relationship, an implication, or an example presented in the source.
A strong response combines accurate understanding of the source, relevant Global Politics knowledge, and an explanation of how that knowledge helps interpret the source.
Identify exactly what must be explained
Read the question again and name the term, claim or relationship it points at. Everything else in the source is background.
State the meaning or claim accurately
Say what it means in Global Politics, not in general English.
Use a specific part of the source
Point at the line, label, figure or image element you are explaining.
Apply relevant course knowledge or a real-world example
Choose the concept or example that explains THIS source, not the one you know best.
Explain the connection
Say how the knowledge changes what the source means. This sentence is the answer.
Do not provide a memorized definition and stop. Apply the concept or knowledge directly to the source.
Question 3 — 6 marks
Compare and/or contrast two sources directly
Question 3 tests comparison and/or contrast of the views, ideas, claims or information in two sources. Read the wording carefully:
- Compare requires similarities.
- Contrast requires differences.
- Compare and contrast requires both.
The strongest method is a running comparison. Discuss both sources together around one common point rather than summarizing one source and then the other.
Both sources recognize that international cooperation is necessary. Source A presents cooperation as effective because institutions help coordinate state action, whereas Source B argues that cooperation remains limited when powerful states prioritize national interests. The sources therefore agree on the need for cooperation but differ on its effectiveness.
Own knowledge is not normally required for Question 3. Use wider course understanding only when it provides brief and directly relevant context, and never let it replace comparison of the sources.
| Benchmark | Source A | Source B | Compare or contrast? |
|---|---|---|---|
Aim for roughly three developed matching comparisons or contrasts, while following the exact demands of the question. Three points do not automatically earn six marks — the question-specific markscheme does that.
Question 4 — 12 marks
Synthesize sources, knowledge and perspectives
Question 4 is the extended response. It tests your ability to evaluate the sources and synthesize relevant source evidence with your own Global Politics knowledge. The response should be clear, logical and coherent, and it must answer the specific command term and political issue in the question.
| Command term | What it asks for |
|---|---|
| Discuss | Offer a considered and balanced review supported by evidence |
| Evaluate | Weigh strengths and limitations and reach a judgment |
| Examine | Explore assumptions, relationships and complexities |
| Justify | Give valid reasons or evidence supporting a conclusion |
| Recommend | Present an appropriate course of action supported by evidence |
| To what extent | Assess the degree to which a claim is valid |
The wording of the question controls the structure. Do not force every Question 4 response into the same formula.
Own knowledge must add analytical value
Own knowledge may include the four Core concepts, prescribed Core content, actors and stakeholders, theoretical perspectives, relevant contemporary political examples, institutions, laws or agreements, evidence from cases studied during the course, knowledge of the political context, and perspectives not represented in the source set.
It should be accurate, relevant to the precise question, and used to support or challenge source claims, add context, help explain perspectives or deepen evaluation.
Do not add facts merely to show how much you know. Every example must help answer the question.
Integrate evaluation into the argument
Source evaluation should not be separated from political analysis. When using a source, consider the actor who produced it, the interests or values shaping its perspective, its political or historical context, its purpose and intended audience, the evidence it provides, the claims it cannot prove alone, whether another source supports or challenges it, and whether your own knowledge confirms, qualifies or contradicts it.
"Source C presents the policy as successful, but it was produced by the government responsible for implementing the programme. This gives the source value as evidence of the government's justification, although its political interest may lead it to understate implementation problems identified by affected communities."
Do not write isolated statements such as "Source A is biased". Explain the nature of the perspective and how it affects the source's value for answering the question.
A structure that can work
This is guidance rather than a compulsory five-paragraph formula.
Introduction
- identify the central issue
- interpret the command term
- state the overall line of argument
- acknowledge complexity where relevant
Body paragraphs
- make a claim that answers the question
- integrate relevant evidence from one or more sources
- add relevant own knowledge
- explain the political mechanism or relationship
- consider another perspective, limitation or counterclaim
- reconnect to the question
Conclusion
- answer the question directly
- weigh the strongest arguments
- explain the conditions affecting the judgment
- avoid adding entirely new evidence
What stronger Question 4 responses demonstrate
Limited
- limited understanding of the question
- little relevant knowledge
- mostly descriptive source references
- perspectives not identified
Developing
- some understanding
- some knowledge, but not always accurate or relevant
- partial integration of source evidence
- perspectives identified but not explored
Secure
- relevant and accurate knowledge
- synthesis of own knowledge and sources
- perspectives explored
- clear response to the question
Strongest
- in-depth understanding of the question
- relevant and accurate knowledge used effectively
- effective synthesis of sources and own knowledge
- appropriate examples integrated
- perspectives explored and evaluated
Question 4 is not rewarded simply for mentioning every source. The quality of integration, analysis and evaluation matters more than the number of source references.
Plan with the complete source set and use every source that is relevant. Do not force an irrelevant source into an argument simply to create a reference.
Protect time for Question 4
A suggested 75-minute plan. Adjust it after timed practice.
Common mistakes to avoid
Answering the topic instead of the question
The response uses relevant political knowledge but ignores the specific focus.
Copying the source
The student repeats source wording without explaining its significance.
Defining without applying
Question 2 includes a memorized definition but does not connect it to the source.
Separate source summaries
Question 3 discusses Source A and Source B independently instead of comparing them directly.
Unmatched comparisons
One source contains an idea that the other source does not address.
Using origin as the comparison
Question 3 compares who produced the sources rather than their relevant views or claims.
Binary source judgments
A source is labelled reliable, unreliable or biased without explanation.
Information dumping
Question 4 includes everything the student knows rather than selected relevant knowledge.
Source evidence without synthesis
Sources are mentioned in separate sentences but are not connected to the argument.
Perspectives are listed
Different views are named but not explained or evaluated.
A rigid essay formula
The response follows a memorized structure that does not suit the command term.
A vague conclusion
The conclusion repeats the introduction without reaching a supported judgment.
Build Paper 1 skills progressively
Stage 1 — Source reading
Practise identifying claims, evidence, perspectives, origin, purpose, context, and value and limitations.
Stage 2 — Individual questions
Practise one question type at a time: visual interpretation for Question 1, applied explanation for Question 2, matching comparisons for Question 3, and source-plus-knowledge paragraphs for Question 4.
Stage 3 — Combined skills
Complete Questions 1 and 2 together, Question 3 comparison grids, and Question 4 plans using all four sources.
Stage 4 — Timed paper
Complete a full 75-minute paper under examination conditions.
Stage 5 — Reflection and rewriting
After marking: identify one successful skill and one recurring weakness, rewrite one weak answer or paragraph, compare it with the relevant markscheme or markband, and set one target for the next practice.
Do not record only the total mark. Record performance by skill.
- Understanding
- Application
- Comparison
- Synthesis
- Evaluation
- Perspectives
Before the examination
Paper 1 resources
Specimen Paper 1
Use an official specimen paper to understand the source types, question structure and level of challenge.
Question 3 comparison grid
A simple table for creating matching points and planning a running comparison.
Question 4 synthesis planner
A tool for connecting claims, source evidence, own knowledge, perspectives and evaluation.
Paper 1 command terms
Student-friendly meanings of the command terms used across the paper.
Paper 1 source sets
Short source-based exercises and complete timed practice papers.