Question 2

What Does Question 2 Look Like?

From the Global Politics Guide: The second question tests application of knowledge to the context of a source/sources. This can be demonstrated, for example, by explaining a term used in a source or by explaining the topic dealt with in the source [see below for one example of each of these types of questions]. 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".

Constructing Your Response

In order to "explain" or "analyse" you will need to go beyond a brief point form response. In other words, question 2 requires more depth to your response. In the first example below, "using Source C and one example you have studied, explain the reasons why international co-operation may be problematic for some states" you can see where the four points for this question would come from simply by the way the question is phrased. Basically it is saying:

  1. Use a good example from Source C
  2. Explain how Source C demonstrates "reasons why international cooperation may be problematic"
  3. Using a good example from something we studied
  4. Explain how the example from something we studied demonstrates "reasons why international cooperation may be problematic"

Note: 1 and 2 should constitute one paragraph then 3 and 4 your second paragraph [see the subject report comments in the last section of this page].

As well, do you see the connection between the command term "explain" and the explaining you are meant to do in the second part of each of the two paragraphs? If you don't actually "explain" the reasons why international cooperation may be problematic" you are not going to achieve full marks. Use your highlighter when you read the question to highlight the what exactly you should be doing when constructing your response.

Sample Questions

An example of applying knowledge by explaining the topic dealt with in the source.

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.

In this question, "international cooperation" is the "topic" dealt with in the source.

An example of applying knowledge by explaining a term used in a source.

From “The U.S. is no longer a ‘full democracy’ a new study warns”, an article by Amanda Erickson, The Washington Post (2016).

The government of the United States got a downgrade this week: We’re no longer a “full democracy”, according to the [Democracy Index produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit]. For the first time, we were [lowered to] “flawed”, thanks to an “erosion of public trust in political institutions”.

According to the report’s authors, a flawed democracy has free elections but “weak governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation”. Other countries that [are considered flawed democracies] include Italy, Japan, France and India. Rankings are based on a country’s electoral process, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation and political culture...

SAMPLE QUESTION 2: with explicit reference to Source B and one example you have studied, analyse the concept of a flawed democracy.

In this question, "flawed democracy" is the "term" (as opposed to a general topic) dealt with in the source.

What Is It Worth? How Long Should I Take? How Should I Structure My Response?

Marks: Four marks

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

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 a plucking quotes that correlate to the question that has been asked.

From the Markscheme

The following comes directly from the IB markscheme that is given to examiners when they graded the first sample:

Answers may include, but are not limited to:

  • the difficulty of reconciling domestic and international pressures
  • fears of lack of competitiveness if emission controls are adopted
  • fear of being constrained by international law
  • unwillingness to commit to targets that they were unlikely to meet, or that were perceived as unrealistic, leading to fears of damage to state reputation if targets not met
  • domestic political obligations (eg requirement for Senate ratification)
  • states’ leadership may not be motivated to cooperate.

Other relevant points not listed should also be rewarded.

For each valid explained point a maximum of [2] may be awarded, up to a total of [4]. If there is no reference to another example studied, award a maximum of [3].

A Sample Response

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. They 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.

From the Principal Examiner (The Subject Report)

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.

[See above the section on "how should I structure my response" which also highlights this approach to the question.]