History His3 A Level Aqa Paper

This is the last year of AQA paper 3 but this is an important exam for all those second years taking it. This article is intended to give some guidance on how to answer those questions. The examples I may refer to come from the Triumph and Collapse:USSR module.

Plans

It is always best to theme your response so consider which ones you will use in the plan. Sometimes it is really obvious because a factor is offered in the question and you need to think of alternative ones. so for instance in relation to the break-up of the Soviet Union, the actions of Gorbachev in the question, so the alternatives might include the economy, the role of Yeltsin and the rise of nationalism for example. At other times it might simply be a case of considering the social, economic and political factors, or agriculture, consumerism and heavy industry.

Where it is simply and argue for and against question - i.e. there is no factor - still aim to theme your response - so for instance if it is a `success/failure` question - the leader may be successful in agriculture but not so much in consumerism and heavy industry. This allows for a more measured and balanced response.

Introductions

These need a really strong judgement on the question to begin with. do not sit on the fence and where there is a factor in the question offer alternative ones that are more compelling. this will also give the structure for the rest of the answer.

Paragraph 2

Where there is a factor in the question - deal with this first! It is best to start paragraphs making a judgment on the interpretation too e.g. `It is not especially convincing that the actions of Gorbachev led to the collapse of the USSR` - this makes a judgment and a clear link to the question from the outset.

Then use lots of precise evidence - and precise is really key here! (facts, figures, dates etc.) to demonstrate why some people make this interpretation. Keep linking the evidence to the question as you go `this therefore, seems to suggest that production declined causing popular discontent with the communist regime which led to the collapse...`

Following this, you should introduce counter arguments - this is different from alternative factors! Here you should look at the evidence presented to support the argument and try and argue against some of it. For instance the Purges of the 1930s was damaging to the Red Army of the eve of war = many of the Red Army Generals were actually rehabilitated by the outbreak of war. This gives balance to the essay!

Finally, and all within the same paragraph, you should give an overall assessment of both sides/a judgement and explain why.

Paragraph 3-5

You are essentially do the same thing with your alternative factors/themes. You would, if there is a factor in the question, begin paragraph three with the most compelling factor and start it something like this:

`Compared to the role played by Gorbachev, the most compelling argument for the collapse of the USSR was the long term economic decline`

By doing this, you have linked the paragraphs but you are also making a strong judgment!

Again use lots of precise evidence closely linked to the question and also consider any counter arguments before making a judgement.

If it is an argue for and against question - the opening is not that different. For instance, for success/failure questions you could start with:

`In comparison to Gorbachev`s economic reforms, he had greater success in his introduction of Glasnost`

Conclusion

Don`t leave this until last minute, this is the very last thing the examiner will read, so finish it on a high note. Bring together all of the arguments and assess which are most compelling and why and which evidence best supports this.

Other tips.

1. Be analytical do just outline how for instance the USSR recovered in its industry after WWII but consider why industry rather than agriculture recovered, what motivations were there/pressures to recover this first? Don t just say Khrushchev s agricultural reforms failed but consider why, were they due to his poor planning? Party obstruction? Inherent weaknesses in central planning? Etc. Being analytical means answering such questions rather than simply outlining what happened. This is a requirement to get in to level 4.

1. Synoptic links to get in to the higher levels you need to be synoptic, this could be finding similarities and differences over time (e.g. all the leaders used 5 year plans, all fixed prices and all invested heavily in industry) (breadth questions) or links between points that caused something to happen, e.g. the reason that Stalin invested so heavily in industry after the war was because of the threat of hostile western states with the onset of the cold war which prompted him into an arms race. Linking an outside factor here (the cold war) created a synoptic link you could go on to say that this also explains why agriculture was overlooked as this did not resolved their security concerns. (synoptic link to agriculture) So do make links within paragraphs don t simply look at a factor through a telescope and ignore how they all fit together.

1. Think Italian crust rather than deep pan when giving evidence: it is better to give a range of evidence for a point than to choose one example and go in to it in too much detail. The danger here is that you will end up describing it. The point is that it is why the evidence is important, not what happened. So for example to demonstrate that there was political stability under Brezhnev, you might just give gerontocracy as an example and then move on. BUT it is better to give a range, e.g. gerontocracy, nomenklatura, his prot g es (Dneiper mafia) a revulsion to Khrushchev and a reversal of his reforms - all in the same paragraph and analyse how this can be seen as him ensuring stability etc.

1. For breadth questions cover the whole period. You will lose marks if you skip that last leader!