Extended Writing and Argument

The 16-mark judgement essay is the highest-tariff question on AQA, Edexcel and Eduqas; OCR's equivalent is 18 marks. Whichever board you sit, it is the question that makes the largest single contribution to your final grade. Students who can structure, argue, substantiate and judge in 25 minutes of continuous prose earn Grade 8 and Grade 9. Students who freewrite a narrative earn Grade 4 or 5.

---

What the 16-Mark Question Asks

The question type goes by different names — "How far do you agree?", "To what extent…?", "Which was the more important…?" — but all variants ask you to:

1. Take a position on a claim.
2. Build a case for that position with precise evidence.
3. Engage seriously with the counter-position.
4. Reach a substantiated overall judgement.

This is fundamentally an argumentative essay, not a descriptive one. The examiner is looking for a line of reasoning.

---

The Five-Paragraph Skeleton

A tried structure for a 16-mark essay in 25 minutes:

flowchart TD
    A[Introduction: claim + plan] --> B[Para 1: Main supporting argument]
    B --> C[Para 2: Second supporting argument]
    C --> D[Para 3: Counter-argument engaged seriously]
    D --> E[Para 4: Conclusion with substantiated judgement]

Section	Purpose	Time budget
Introduction	State your overall judgement and outline two or three factors	2 minutes
Supporting paragraph 1	Strongest case for your position with precise evidence	6 minutes
Supporting paragraph 2	Second strongest case for your position	5 minutes
Counter paragraph	Serious engagement with the opposing case	5 minutes
Conclusion	Weigh the sides; land the judgement	3 minutes
Planning + review	Planning beforehand and checking at the end	4 minutes

The counter-paragraph is where most mid-band essays collapse: they either ignore the opposing view or pay it token lip service. Treat the counter-argument as genuinely strong, and then explain why your overall judgement still holds.

---

PEEL / PEAL Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should have an internal architecture that delivers analysis, not description.

Letter	PEEL	PEAL
P	Point	Point
E	Evidence	Evidence
E / A	Explanation	Analysis
L	Link (back to question)	Link (back to question)

The difference is subtle. PEAL makes the "analysis" step explicit — asking why the evidence supports the point, and so what for the overall argument. Either works; PEAL tends to produce deeper writing.

Example paragraph (PEAL)

P: The failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s was primarily caused by the absence of the United States. E: The League's founding covenant, part of the Treaty of Versailles (1919), assumed American membership; the Senate's rejection of the treaty in November 1919 removed the world's largest economy and future military power from the body. A: Without the US, the League's economic sanctions lacked teeth (as shown in its inability to halt Japan in Manchuria 1931 or Italy in Abyssinia 1935), and its collective security principle became unenforceable when major aggressors could calculate that the remaining Great Powers would not risk war. L: The absence of the United States did not cause every individual League failure, but it structurally weakened the institution from its birth, making the 1930s collapse predictable rather than accidental.

---

Analytical vs Narrative Writing

The commonest cause of a capped grade is drift into narrative. Narrative tells the story of what happened; analysis tells the story of why it matters for the question.

Narrative	Analytical
"In 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. Then the Reichstag Fire happened. Then he passed the Enabling Act."	"Between January and March 1933 Hitler transformed constitutional office into dictatorial power by exploiting the Reichstag Fire — the Enabling Act followed within six weeks, showing how legal mechanisms can be weaponised even by a minority government."

The two passages contain similar factual content. The second connects each fact to an argumentative point (how legal mechanisms can be weaponised). That is analysis.

---

Maintaining a Line of Argument

A sustained line of argument is the most commonly mentioned phrase in top-band mark schemes. It means your thesis — your overall judgement — should be visible in every paragraph, not just the introduction and conclusion.

Two techniques for sustaining argument:

1. Topic sentences that echo the thesis. If your thesis is "economic collapse was the most important cause", then every paragraph should begin with something that positions against that claim (supporting or challenging).
2. Explicit mini-judgements. End each paragraph not with a fact but with a judgement: "This shows economic collapse was the decisive factor, because…" or "However, this does not outweigh…"

---

Linking Paragraphs

Paragraphs should feel like sections of a single argument, not separate boxes. Useful linking phrases:

Purpose	Phrases
Adding supporting point	Moreover, Furthermore, In addition, Building on this
Introducing counter	However, On the other hand, By contrast, Against this
Weighing	Nevertheless, Even so, The stronger argument is
Concluding	Overall, On balance, Taking all factors together

Avoid starting every paragraph with "Another reason was…" — that reads as list, not argument.

---

Landing the Judgement

A weak conclusion repeats what has already been said. A strong conclusion adds one final analytical move: it weighs the factors and gives a reason the winning factor wins.

Weak conclusion

In conclusion, there were many reasons why the Treaty of Versailles was unfair. The reparations were too high and Germany lost a lot of land. So the Treaty was very unfair overall.

Strong conclusion

Overall, the Treaty of Versailles was more unfair in its psychological terms than its material ones. While reparations and territorial losses were severe, they were comparable to peace settlements after earlier European wars. What was distinctive was the war-guilt clause and the diktat nature of the process — Germans were excluded from negotiation and forced to accept formal blame. These elements, rather than the material losses, generated the lasting resentment that shaped interwar politics, making the Treaty's unfairness felt more in humiliation than in economic burden.

The strong version does not merely assert a verdict; it explains why that verdict is right given the evidence already presented.

---

Worked Plan — 90 Seconds

Question: "The main reason for Nazi success in the 1930 election was the impact of the Depression." How far do you agree? (16 marks)

Plan on scrap:

• Overall judgement: Depression was the trigger, but Nazi organisational readiness turned the opportunity into 107 seats.
• Para 1 (support): Depression devastated economy — unemployment 2.5m 1929 to 3m 1930; KPD also gained, showing radicalisation; SPD-led coalition collapsed March 1930.
• Para 2 (support): Depression alone cannot explain Nazis specifically — need their exploitation of it. Hitler's tour, Goebbels propaganda machine, SA street visibility.
• Para 3 (counter): Weimar's structural weakness predated Depression — PR system, Article 48 normalising decree rule, Young Plan resentment since 1929.
• Conclusion: Depression was necessary but not sufficient. Nazis alone among parties were organisationally ready to turn economic anger into electoral support.

With a plan like this in 90 seconds, the essay nearly writes itself.

---

Common Pitfalls