The command terms should be your main guide in answering the questions. The command terms dictate exactly how you should go about answering and how deep you should go in your answer. Are you being asked to recall general knowledge, compare the differences between concepts, or is it asking you to apply your knowledge to a given design context?Â
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answers into clusters. Use the context of the question and the number of marks to guide you about the number and depth of your clusters
Organise your answers into a logical sequence. If you are outlining a process, describe the steps in sequential order. If you are outlining a concept, describe the key components of the concept.
Support your answer with details that are relevant to the question.
Use specific technical vocabulary
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answer into a logical sequence. If you are outlining a process, describe the steps in sequential order. If you are outlining a concept, describe the key components of the concept, most to least important
Support your answer with details that are relevant to the question.
Use specific technical vocabulary
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answer into clusters. Use the context of the question and the number of marks to guide you about the number and depth of your clusters
Support your answer with details that are relevant to the question.
Use specific technical vocabulary
Conclude with a summary or restatement of the main point
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answer into clusters. Use the context of the question and the number of marks to guide you about the number and depth of your clusters
Support each cluster with details and examples that are relevant to the question.
Use specific technical vocabulary
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answer into strengths and limitations. Describe the strengths and limitations in separate cluster
Support your answer with details that are relevant to the question.
Conclude with a summary or restatement of the main point
Use specific technical vocabulary
For this type of question, be sure to
Organise your answers into a logical sequence. If you are outlining a process, describe the steps in sequential order. If you are outlining a concept, describe the key components of the concept.
Support your answer with details that are relevant to the question.
Use specific technical vocabulary
When answering test questions that use the above command terms and carry higher marks, usually 4 and above) organise your answers into clusters. A cluster is like an area listed within the question. Each cluster should have one idea, which is supported by details and examples. You must not mix your clusters, don't list an idea then explain a different idea, keep your focus tight. Try to bullet point your sentences and separate the individual clusters with a line space.
Exam Structures
Duration: 1.5 hours
Weighting: 20%
Marks: 50
Structure:
Section A: One data-based question and several short-answer questions on core material (all compulsory). Total marks: 30.
Section B: One extended-response question on core material (choose one out of three). Total marks: 20.
Duration: 1.5 hours
Weighting: 20%
Marks: 40
Structure:
Section A: Two structured questions on HL extension material (both compulsory). Each question is worth up to 10 marks.
Section B: One structured question on HL extension material based on a case study. This question is worth up to 20 marks.
Question Structures
3 marks → One clear idea with definition, explanation, and example.
6 marks → Two separate ideas, each with explanation, application, and justification.
9 marks → Three distinct ideas, each fully developed with explanation, real-world example, and justification.
A clear definition or explanation of the concept (1 mark).
A relevant application or process description (1 mark).
A supporting example, consequence, or justification (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should be concise yet complete, covering all three elements.
Common mistakes:
Just giving a definition without elaboration.
Missing an example or application.
Providing too much detail that doesn't answer the question directly.
Two distinct aspects of the concept (usually 3 marks per aspect).
Each aspect should include:
A clear explanation (1 mark per aspect).
A real-world application or example (1 mark per aspect).
A justification, consequence, or further elaboration (1 mark per aspect).
Well-structured responses should present two clear points with depth, often in two structured 'bulleted' paragraphs.
Common mistakes:
Only covering one aspect instead of two.
Giving a generalized answer without specific applications.
Writing a long, unstructured response that lacks clear marking points.
Three distinct points related to the question (3 marks per point).
Each point should include:
A clear explanation (1 mark per point).
A real-world example or case study (1 mark per point).
A justification, consequence, or further elaboration (1 mark per point).
Well-structured responses should have three clear sections, with each section developing a separate, well-supported point.
Common mistakes:
Only explaining one or two points instead of three.
Not linking the points together to form a logical progression.
Providing insufficient depth—examiners want specificity and real-world relevance.
"Outline" Questions:
Feature Outline Explain
Depth Brief summary In-depth reasoning
Examples Short mention (optional) Required, with justification
Structure Concise, one key idea More detailed, often multiple ideas
Common Mistake Giving too much detail Lacking depth or missing justification
2-Mark "Outline" Question
One key point related to the question (1 mark).
A brief explanation or example that supports the key point (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should be concise yet complete, covering both elements in one or two sentences.
Common mistakes:
Giving too much detail—stick to a concise answer.
Listing a point without a brief explanation.
3-Mark "Outline" Question
One key point related to the question (1 mark).
A brief supporting explanation (1 mark).
A short example or real-world reference (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should be short but specific, using a real-world example if relevant.
Common mistakes:
Providing too much explanation instead of a concise summary.
Forgetting to include an example or specific context.
In the case of 4 mark and 6 mark questions, simply double the 2 and 3 mark questions, the questions will usually ask you for 2 examplesÂ
Definition:
An evaluation requires weighing up the advantages and disadvantages, strengths and limitations, or different impacts of a concept before forming a conclusion.
Two strengths or advantages of the concept (2 marks).
Two weaknesses or limitations of the concept (2 marks).
A reasoned judgment or conclusion (2 marks).
Well-structured responses should be balanced, clearly showing both positives and negatives before making a final judgment.
Common mistakes:
Only discussing advantages or disadvantages, but not both.
Missing a conclusion or not justifying it.
Three strengths or advantages (3 marks).
Three weaknesses or limitations (3 marks).
A well-justified conclusion that considers context (3 marks).
Well-structured responses should include clear arguments supported by real-world examples and a logical conclusion based on evidence.
Common mistakes:
Failing to provide real-world examples.
Writing an imbalanced argument (e.g., only discussing pros).
Weak conclusion that does not clearly state a final evaluation.
Definition:
A discussion requires considering multiple perspectives, arguments, or viewpoints without necessarily making a final judgment.
Two different perspectives on the topic (3 marks each).
Each perspective should include:
A clear argument (1 mark).
A supporting example or justification (1 mark).
A potential counterpoint or limitation (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should consider at least two sides of an issue with relevant examples.
Common mistakes:
Only covering one perspective.
Failing to explain arguments fully with evidence.
Three different perspectives on the topic (3 marks each).
Each perspective should include:
A clear argument (1 mark).
A real-world example or evidence (1 mark).
A counterpoint or limitation (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should explore multiple viewpoints and avoid bias.
Common mistakes:
Only discussing one or two perspectives instead of three.
Lacking real-world examples to support arguments.
Writing a one-sided answer instead of considering multiple perspectives.
Feature Evaluate Discuss
Focus Strengths & weaknesses, leading to a judgment Multiple perspectives on an issue
Depth Weighs up pros and cons before concluding Considers different viewpoints with no required conclusion
Common Mistakes No balanced argument or missing conclusion Ignoring opposing views or lacking depth
Definition:
A "Compare" question requires both similarities and differences between two or more concepts. Examiners expect a structured comparison rather than just separate descriptions.
One similarity between the two items (1 mark).
One difference between the two items (1 mark).
A brief example or justification (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should explicitly compare rather than just describe each item separately.
Common mistakes:
Only providing similarities or differences, but not both.
Listing facts without directly comparing them.
Two similarities between the concepts (2 marks).
Two differences between the concepts (2 marks).
A real-world example or application (2 marks).
Well-structured responses should use a table or clear structure to organize similarities and differences.
Common mistakes:
Not directly comparing—just describing each concept separately.
Giving too much detail instead of focusing on key comparisons.
Three similarities (3 marks).
Three differences (3 marks).
A critical analysis or example showing significance (3 marks).
Well-structured responses should demonstrate a deeper comparison, explaining why differences matter.
Common mistakes:
Only listing points without explaining significance.
Not linking ideas together for a logical flow.
Definition:
A "Describe" question requires factual details about a concept, process, or system. The response should be clear, structured, and avoid analysis or evaluation.
One key feature or characteristic (1 mark).
A further detail explaining it (1 mark).
A short example or application (1 mark).
Well-structured responses should stay factual and avoid opinion or justification.
Common mistakes:
Providing analysis instead of description.
Giving too much or too little detail.
Two key features or steps (2 marks).
A detailed explanation of each feature (2 marks).
A relevant example or application (2 marks).
Well-structured responses should include step-by-step explanations if describing a process.
Common mistakes:
Listing features without explanation.
Writing too broadly without specific details.
Three key features or steps (3 marks).
Detailed explanations for each (3 marks).
A strong example or real-world application (3 marks).
Well-structured responses should be logically ordered and detailed.
Common mistakes:
Not structuring the answer properly.
Forgetting examples or real-world applications.
Feature Compare Describe
Focus Similarities & differences between two or more things Detailed factual explanation of a concept
Structure Organised contrast of two concepts Step-by-step or feature-by-feature explanation
Common Mistakes Listing facts separately instead of making direct comparisons Providing opinion, analysis, or insufficient detail