You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
"How far do you agree?" questions are the highest-value questions on the AQA GCSE History exam, typically worth 16 marks plus 4 marks for SPaG (20 marks in total). They require you to construct a sustained, analytical argument with a clear judgement. This lesson teaches you a step-by-step approach to writing these essays under exam conditions.
A "How far do you agree?" question presents a statement and asks you to evaluate it. For example:
"The main reason for the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 was the failure of republican government." How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [16 marks + 4 SPaG]
The question is asking you to:
Exam Tip: "How far" signals that you should not simply agree or disagree completely. The best answers explore a range of factors and then explain which is most significant. Total agreement or total disagreement, without considering alternatives, will cap your mark.
Spending a few minutes planning will dramatically improve the quality of your essay. Use this quick planning method:
| Plan Element | Example |
|---|---|
| Factor in statement | Failure of republican government |
| Factor 2 | General Monck's intervention |
| Factor 3 | Charles II's character and the Declaration of Breda |
| Factor 4 | Popular demand for stability |
| Judgement | Largely agree — the failure of the republic created the conditions, but Monck's action was the immediate trigger |
State your overall argument clearly. Do not waste time with general background — go straight to your judgement.
Example:
The failure of republican government was a significant factor in the Restoration of 1660, but it was not the only reason. I largely agree with the statement, as the collapse of the Protectorate created the conditions for the Restoration, but the decisive action of General Monck and the pragmatism of Charles II were also essential.
Each paragraph should follow the PEEL structure:
| Element | What to Do | Example |
|---|---|---|
| P — Point | State the factor you are discussing | "The failure of republican government was a major reason for the Restoration." |
| E — Evidence | Provide specific historical evidence | "Richard Cromwell lacked authority and resigned in May 1659. The Rump Parliament was recalled and dissolved again. By early 1660, there was no functioning government." |
| E — Explain | Explain how this factor contributed to the outcome | "This political chaos demonstrated that England could not be governed without a monarch and made people willing to accept the return of Charles II." |
| L — Link | Link back to the question and your overall argument | "Therefore, the failure of the republic was a necessary condition for the Restoration, supporting the statement." |
Exam Tip: The Explain step is where most marks are gained or lost. Simply describing what happened is not enough — you must explain why it mattered and how it contributed to the outcome. This is the difference between Level 2 (description) and Level 3/4 (analysis).
Your conclusion should:
Example:
In conclusion, I largely agree that the failure of republican government was the main reason for the Restoration. The collapse of the Protectorate and the inability of Parliament and the army to govern effectively created the conditions in which a return to monarchy became the only viable option. However, the Restoration would not have happened when and how it did without General Monck's decisive intervention in February 1660. Monck's march on London transformed the theoretical possibility of restoration into a practical reality. Therefore, while the failure of the republic was the underlying cause, Monck's action was the immediate trigger.
To reach the highest level, your answer must demonstrate:
| Criterion | What This Means |
|---|---|
| Sustained analysis | Your answer is analytical throughout, not just in the conclusion |
| Range of accurate knowledge | You use specific, detailed evidence — names, dates, events |
| Supported judgement | Your final judgement is clearly stated and supported by the evidence in your essay |
| Considering multiple factors | You discuss at least 3 different factors and weigh them against each other |
| Addressing the question directly | Every paragraph links back to "how far" you agree |
| Mistake | Why It Loses Marks | How to Fix It |
|---|---|---|
| No judgement | The question asks "how far" — you must reach a conclusion | State your judgement in both the introduction and conclusion |
| Only agreeing with the statement | You must consider other factors to show balanced analysis | Discuss at least 2 alternative factors |
| Narrative storytelling | Telling the story of events is description, not analysis | Use PEEL structure; focus on why things happened |
| No specific evidence | Vague, general points will not reach Level 3 | Include names, dates, specific events, and statistics |
| Running out of time | This question carries the most marks — you must finish it | Plan your time; aim for 25 minutes including planning |
Exam Tip: Practise writing timed essays using past paper questions. Aim to complete a full 16-mark essay in 25 minutes (3 minutes planning, 20 minutes writing, 2 minutes checking). Regular practice is the single most effective way to improve your essay technique.
Question: "'Stalin's use of terror was the main reason he stayed in power.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [16 marks + 4 SPaG, AO1 + AO2 + AO4, Paper 1 Russia 1894–1945]
Worked main-factor paragraph at Level 4:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.