You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Paper 2 examines two optional topics from a choice of four: Culture and Identity, Families and Households, Health, and Work, Poverty and Welfare. Because Families and Households is the most widely taught option, this lesson draws its worked exemplars from that area — but the question structure is identical across all four topics, so the technique transfers wholesale. The signature question of Paper 2 is the 20-mark evaluate essay, and this lesson builds Mid-band, Stronger and Top-band exemplars for it, alongside the 10-mark "analyse" and the "outline and explain" question.
Which paper this covers: AQA 7192 Paper 2, Topics in Sociology (2 hours, 80 marks). You answer two 40-mark sections, one per option, in 60 minutes each. Each section contains an "outline and explain" question, a 10-mark Item-based "analyse" question, and a 20-mark "evaluate" essay.
| Question | Type | Marks | AO1 | AO2 | AO3 | Recommended Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q | Outline and explain two | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 15 mins |
| Q | Applying material from the Item, analyse two | 10 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 15 mins |
| Q | Evaluate (essay) | 20 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 27 mins |
| Command Word | What the examiner rewards |
|---|---|
| Outline and explain two | Two distinct, developed reasons/ways — no evaluation required |
| Applying material from the Item, analyse | Two Item-anchored analytical chains |
| Evaluate / Assess | Two-sided argument applied to the exact view, with a justified conclusion |
Key Point: The 20-mark essay is not a shrunken 30-mark essay. AO3 (analysis and evaluation) carries 8 of the 20 marks — the single largest strand — so a tight, evaluative four-paragraph response outperforms a sprawling descriptive one. Do not pad it with AO1 you do not need.
Some Paper 2 sections open with a 10-mark "Outline and explain two..." question. This is item-free and rewards two developed points (AO1 with some AO2 application), with no evaluation. Treat it as two mini-essays of one paragraph each.
Exam Tip: "Outline and explain" means you must do more than name the way — you must explain the causal link to the outcome. One sentence of identification plus two to three of development per point is the target.
This question presents an Item and asks you to apply material from the Item and your knowledge to analyse two aspects of an issue. It carries no standalone AO1 credit — all marks are AO2 (application/Item) and AO3 (analysis). Listing studies without the Item or without developed reasoning stays in the bottom band.
Item B: "The nuclear family was once seen as the standard family form. Today, sociologists point to growing diversity: lone-parent families, reconstituted families and cohabiting couples are all more common. Some link this to greater individual choice; others to changes in the law and the economy."
Question: "Applying material from Item B, analyse two reasons for the increase in family diversity (10 marks)."
Mid-band response: "One reason is divorce. Divorce has gone up so there are more lone-parent and reconstituted families. The Item mentions these. Another reason is choice. The Item says some link diversity to individual choice. Postmodernists like Stacey say people choose their family type now, so there is more diversity."
Examiner-style commentary: Mid-band. Both reasons are valid and Stacey is correctly cited, but the Item is only gestured at and the analysis is asserted ("so there is more diversity") rather than developed into a chain. To climb: quote a precise Item hook and explain how each reason produces diversity, with a developed study.
Stronger response: "The Item notes diversity is sometimes linked 'to changes in the law and the economy'. One reason, then, is legal change: the Divorce Reform Act 1969 made divorce more accessible, raising the divorce rate, which directly increased lone-parent and reconstituted families — two of the forms the Item lists. A second reason is individualisation. The Item also points to 'greater individual choice', and Beck and Beck-Gernsheim's individualisation thesis explains this: as tradition weakens, people construct their own 'do-it-yourself' biographies, so family forms multiply because they are now matters of personal choice rather than social obligation."
Examiner-style commentary: Stronger. Each point quotes a distinct Item hook and develops a chain with an apt theorist (legal change; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim). To reach the top band, the candidate could analyse how the two reasons interact — e.g. legal change enabling the choices individualisation encourages — rather than treating them as separate.
Top-band response: "The Item separates structural causes ('changes in the law and the economy') from agency ('greater individual choice'), and analysing the first shows it enables the second. Legal change — the Divorce Reform Act 1969 making divorce accessible — did not merely raise the divorce rate and multiply lone-parent and reconstituted families; it altered the conditions under which relationships are entered, so that staying together became a choice rather than a legal trap. This connects directly to the Item's second strand: Beck and Beck-Gernsheim argue individualisation frees people to author their own relationships, but that freedom is only meaningful where law and economy permit exit and self-support — for example, women's increased economic independence. The two reasons are therefore not parallel but sequential: structural change unlocks the agency that produces diversity, which is why diversity accelerated precisely as both legal and economic barriers fell together."
Examiner-style commentary: Top-band. Two Item hooks, two developed chains, and genuine connective analysis ("not parallel but sequential") that shows how the reasons relate. This synthesis is exactly what the AO3 marks on a 10-mark question reward.
The 20-mark essay is the flagship of Paper 2. Its marks split as follows:
| AO | Marks | What is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | 6 | Relevant, accurate knowledge and understanding |
| AO2 | 6 | Application to the specific view in the question (and the Item, if provided) |
| AO3 | 8 | Analysis and evaluation leading to a judgement |
graph TD
A["Introduction: define terms, frame the debate (3-4 lines)"] --> B["FOR: argument + evidence + evaluation"]
B --> C["AGAINST: counter-argument + evidence + evaluation"]
C --> D["Further FOR/AGAINST: a different perspective"]
D --> E["Optional: synoptic or evaluative point"]
E --> F["Conclusion: weigh sides, justified judgement (3-5 lines)"]
| Component | Content | Approx. lines |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Brief definition, frame the debate, signpost | 3-4 |
| Paragraph 1 (FOR) | Argument + evidence + evaluation | 10-12 |
| Paragraph 2 (AGAINST) | Counter-argument + evidence + evaluation | 10-12 |
| Paragraph 3 | Further perspective | 10-12 |
| Paragraph 4 (optional) | Synoptic/evaluative point | 6-8 |
| Conclusion | Justified judgement | 3-5 |
1. Theoretical critique — challenge a view from a rival perspective.
| If the view comes from... | Evaluate using... |
|---|---|
| Functionalism (nuclear family is universal/functional) | Marxism (serves capitalism), Feminism (oppresses women), Postmodernism (diversity) |
| Marxism (family reproduces inequality) | Functionalism (stability), Postmodernism (class less central), Liberal feminism (progress) |
| Feminism (family is patriarchal) | Liberal feminism (symmetry/progress), Postmodernism (more choices), Functionalism (roles are functional) |
| New Right (nuclear family is best) | Feminism (ignores patriarchy), Postmodernism (diversity is positive), evidence of successful alternatives |
2. Empirical evidence — deploy studies for and against.
| Issue | Supporting | Challenging |
|---|---|---|
| Symmetrical family | Young and Willmott (1973) — march of progress | Oakley (1974) — women still do more housework; Duncombe and Marsden — triple shift |
| Nuclear family as ideal | Parsons (1955) — warm bath, functional fit | Stacey — divorce-extended family; Giddens — pure relationship |
| Family diversity | Rapoport and Rapoport (1982) — five types | Chester (1985) — neo-conventional family still dominant |
| Childhood | Aries (1962) — social construction | Postman (1994) — disappearance of childhood |
| Domestic violence | Dobash and Dobash (1979) — patriarchal control | Radical vs liberal feminist disputes over causes |
3. Methodological critique — e.g. Young and Willmott's symmetry claim rested on a survey question about men "helping" with housework, arguably overstating equality; official divorce statistics record legal status, not relationship quality.
4. Contemporary relevance — Parsons wrote of 1950s America; Young and Willmott of 1973. Has equality progressed, stalled, or reversed under the "triple shift"? Factor in same-sex marriage, social media and economic change.
Exam Tip: Top-band evaluation is integrated: each paragraph argues a point and immediately weighs it, rather than stacking all the "for" points first and all the "against" points after. The discursive, argument-led style is what lifts AO3.
Question: "Evaluate the view that the domestic division of labour has become more equal (20 marks)."
Mid-band response (extract): "Some sociologists think the domestic division of labour is more equal now. Young and Willmott said there is a symmetrical family where men and women share tasks. This is the march of progress view. But feminists disagree. Oakley criticised Young and Willmott and said women still do most of the housework. Duncombe and Marsden said women do a triple shift of paid work, housework and emotion work. So the division of labour is not really equal. In conclusion, it depends, but there has been some change."
Examiner-style commentary: Mid-band. The right studies are present (Young and Willmott, Oakley, Duncombe and Marsden) and there is a basic two-sided shape, but the studies are described and the evaluation is asserted, not argued ("So... not really equal"). The conclusion ("it depends") is unjustified. To improve: apply each study to the precise idea of equality, evaluate methodologically, and reach a conclusion the argument actually supports.
Stronger response (extract): "The march-of-progress view holds that the domestic division of labour is more equal. Young and Willmott argued that the symmetrical family had emerged, with conjugal roles becoming joint rather than segregated as women entered paid work. This supports the view. However, the claim can be challenged methodologically: Oakley pointed out that their evidence rested on men merely 'helping' with one task a week, which hardly demonstrates equality. Her own research found women still performed the bulk of domestic labour. Feminists develop this: Duncombe and Marsden's concept of the triple shift shows women carry paid work, housework and emotion work, suggesting that any increase in men's contribution has not produced genuine equality but a heavier overall load for women."
Examiner-style commentary: Stronger. Studies are applied to the specific idea of equality, and the Oakley critique is genuinely methodological rather than a bare assertion. The triple-shift point develops the argument. To reach the top band, the candidate should add a further dimension (e.g. decision-making and money management, or the impact of dual-earner households) and build to a justified conclusion rather than stopping at "not genuine equality".
Top-band response (extract + conclusion): "Whether the domestic division of labour has become more equal depends on what we measure. On the optimistic side, Young and Willmott's symmetrical-family thesis and the rise of dual-earner households suggest convergence in paid work and some sharing of tasks. But this is precisely where the view overreaches. Methodologically, Oakley showed their 'symmetry' rested on men 'helping' with a single weekly task, so the evidence never demonstrated equality in the first place. Conceptually, Duncombe and Marsden's triple shift reframes the issue: women's entry into paid work has added to, not replaced, their domestic and emotional labour. Even where tasks appear shared, feminists point to the persistence of unequal responsibility — women remain the default organisers of family life — and to unequal control over money and major decisions. There has, then, been real change in some dimensions (paid work, attitudes, men's involvement with children), but it is uneven and partial. The most defensible judgement is that the division of labour has become less unequal rather than equal: the direction of travel supports the optimists, but the persistence of the triple shift and unequal responsibility supports the feminist critique, and on the balance of evidence the latter is the stronger account of contemporary family life."
Examiner-style commentary: Top-band. It interrogates the question ("depends on what we measure"), integrates evaluation into each move (methodological and conceptual critique), introduces a discriminating distinction (tasks vs responsibility), and reaches a carefully justified conclusion ("less unequal rather than equal") that follows from the argument. The judgement is qualified and evidence-led — the signature of the top band.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 4 lessons in this course.