Trouble with writing a Paper 2 Essay

[turtle turtle]

So i'm finding it hard to understand how to do a good paper 2 essay: How are you meant to weigh up and evaluate the importance of various factors??

 

For example, how do you justify the fact that propaganda assisted his rise, without just asserting 'propaganda contributed to his rise'?? I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Thanks  for any responses!!

[IB_taking_over]

Which topic for paper 2?

[IbTrojan]

So i'm finding it hard to understand how to do a good paper 2 essay: How are you meant to weigh up and evaluate the importance of various factors??

 

I'm just going to write the structure that I use here first:

 

Introduction:

Opening statement

Brief context

Introduce question (embedded).

Develop focus (scope)

Lay out arguments

Define any historical terminology used for clarification of the essay (better flow)

Thesis

 

Argument Paragraphs:

Context of the argument (make sure you're not straying off track)

Argument statement

Present an idea (e.g. For Cult of Personality - Stalin is seen as a hero of the Soviet Union)

Present evidence (e.g. He provided education to the literate - PROOF - literacy rates increased to 82% in females and 96% in males)

Analysis (explain significance of the evidence to the idea presented. Then link that to the argument. Then link that to the thesis - thus answering the initial question)

REPEAT for as many ideas/pieces of evidence you have.

Statement encompassing the gist of your analysis - "The Point" of your argument in relation to your thesis 

**Historiography - present perspectives in favour of your argument (include in analysis portion wherever relevant)

                          - present perspectives against your argument (e.g. If the traditionalist POV is for your argument, use the revisionist or post-revisionist POV as your way of acknowledging other academic opinions). 

 

Concluding Paragraph:

- Restate your thesis

- Summarize your arguments, possibly reiterating some key evidence

- Answer the question - "The Point" of the entire essay

- Final Thoughts

 

For example, how do you justify the fact that propaganda assisted his rise, without just asserting 'propaganda contributed to his rise'?? 

 

I'm assuming this is for Authoritarian and Single-Party states (hence, the "rise")? 

How my teacher has taught me - make cause and effect statements. Especially for your thesis and arguments. So you could definitely state that propaganda contributed to rise to power (probably an argument though, not a thesis - too specific for a thesis in my opinion). 

 

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

 

I don't know if I've understood your confusion as you meant it. Let me know if you have any other questions. I hope this somewhat helps!

[Guest]

Since I generally have trouble with this too, I figured I might as well ask my questions on this thread as well (if OP doesn't mind).

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

Firstly, how do you then compare it in 'to what extent' questions. For example, let's say I was talking about the reasons behind World War I and was trying to argue that alliances played the biggest role in starting the war. How could you justify why you believe it's true? I mean, yes, you could give evidence in that it lead to greater tension between the countries and was the reason Austria-Hungary and Serbia were willing to take the steps they did, but how do you weigh that up against, for example, militarism and the desire of Germany and Britain to prove themselves as the greater power? Would you say that, whilst the latter only allowed for an increase in tensions, alliances lead to direct action which lead to war?

 

Secondly, how do you provide an alternative view without completely dismissing the argument you made entirely? For example, let's say I was saying that alliances were the most important whilst a historian says that they played little role. Would you just not give evidence for why what they're saying may be true?

[IbTrojan]

Since I generally have trouble with this too, I figured I might as well ask my questions on this thread as well (if OP doesn't mind).

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

Firstly, how do you then compare it in 'to what extent' questions. For example, let's say I was talking about the reasons behind World War I and was trying to argue that alliances played the biggest role in starting the war. How could you justify why you believe it's true? I mean, yes, you could give evidence in that it lead to greater tension between the countries and was the reason Austria-Hungary and Serbia were willing to take the steps they did, but how do you weigh that up against, for example, militarism and the desire of Germany and Britain to prove themselves as the greater power? Would you say that, whilst the latter only allowed for an increase in tensions, alliances lead to direct action which lead to war?

 

Yes, at least, that's what I would do. Obviously, you need to mention more than that. So specific alliances, and how it was the alliances that led to militaristic action. If you're trying to argue that alliances were the primary reason that led to the start of the war, you could also argue how it was alliances that led to militaristic action (thus covering both topics but having alliances as the base of it). Does that make sense?

 

 

Secondly, how do you provide an alternative view without completely dismissing the argument you made entirely? For example, let's say I was saying that alliances were the most important whilst a historian says that they played little role. Would you just not give evidence for why what they're saying may be true?

 

Well you wouldn't be completely dismissing your argument. The way I incorporate historiography is usually at the end of my "point" or at the end of a paragraph. If I have a lot, then I'll just make it a paragraph on it's own and discuss the validity of them all. You want to use historiography that strengthens your argument (supports your arguments) and then provide insight that you acknowledge there are other points of view (So and so said this however there are multiple interpretations of this as an American professor of history said so and so). 

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense.

 

**And keep in mind that this is simply my style of writing (so other history students, if you think this is not effective, please pitch in!) 

[Guest]

 

Since I generally have trouble with this too, I figured I might as well ask my questions on this thread as well (if OP doesn't mind).

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

Firstly, how do you then compare it in 'to what extent' questions. For example, let's say I was talking about the reasons behind World War I and was trying to argue that alliances played the biggest role in starting the war. How could you justify why you believe it's true? I mean, yes, you could give evidence in that it lead to greater tension between the countries and was the reason Austria-Hungary and Serbia were willing to take the steps they did, but how do you weigh that up against, for example, militarism and the desire of Germany and Britain to prove themselves as the greater power? Would you say that, whilst the latter only allowed for an increase in tensions, alliances lead to direct action which lead to war?

 

Yes, at least, that's what I would do. Obviously, you need to mention more than that. So specific alliances, and how it was the alliances that led to militaristic action. If you're trying to argue that alliances were the primary reason that led to the start of the war, you could also argue how it was alliances that led to militaristic action (thus covering both topics but having alliances as the base of it). Does that make sense?

 

 

Secondly, how do you provide an alternative view without completely dismissing the argument you made entirely? For example, let's say I was saying that alliances were the most important whilst a historian says that they played little role. Would you just not give evidence for why what they're saying may be true?

 

Well you wouldn't be completely dismissing your argument. The way I incorporate historiography is usually at the end of my "point" or at the end of a paragraph. If I have a lot, then I'll just make it a paragraph on it's own and discuss the validity of them all. You want to use historiography that strengthens your argument (supports your arguments) and then provide insight that you acknowledge there are other points of view (So and so said this however there are multiple interpretations of this as an American professor of history said so and so). 

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense.

 

**And keep in mind that this is simply my style of writing (so other history students, if you think this is not effective, please pitch in!) 

 

 

Thank you so much for the help!

[turtle turtle]

 

Since I generally have trouble with this too, I figured I might as well ask my questions on this thread as well (if OP doesn't mind).

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

Firstly, how do you then compare it in 'to what extent' questions. For example, let's say I was talking about the reasons behind World War I and was trying to argue that alliances played the biggest role in starting the war. How could you justify why you believe it's true? I mean, yes, you could give evidence in that it lead to greater tension between the countries and was the reason Austria-Hungary and Serbia were willing to take the steps they did, but how do you weigh that up against, for example, militarism and the desire of Germany and Britain to prove themselves as the greater power? Would you say that, whilst the latter only allowed for an increase in tensions, alliances lead to direct action which lead to war?

 

Yes, at least, that's what I would do. Obviously, you need to mention more than that. So specific alliances, and how it was the alliances that led to militaristic action. If you're trying to argue that alliances were the primary reason that led to the start of the war, you could also argue how it was alliances that led to militaristic action (thus covering both topics but having alliances as the base of it). Does that make sense?

 

 

Secondly, how do you provide an alternative view without completely dismissing the argument you made entirely? For example, let's say I was saying that alliances were the most important whilst a historian says that they played little role. Would you just not give evidence for why what they're saying may be true?

 

Well you wouldn't be completely dismissing your argument. The way I incorporate historiography is usually at the end of my "point" or at the end of a paragraph. If I have a lot, then I'll just make it a paragraph on it's own and discuss the validity of them all. You want to use historiography that strengthens your argument (supports your arguments) and then provide insight that you acknowledge there are other points of view (So and so said this however there are multiple interpretations of this as an American professor of history said so and so). 

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense.

 

**And keep in mind that this is simply my style of writing (so other history students, if you think this is not effective, please pitch in!) 

 

 

 

So basically, even if you don't have hard evidence (e.g. statistics), you can still put forward your argument (e.g. Stalin's aims were popular, and contributed to his rise to power) (<-- But here, do you have to make a judgment e.g. It made his rise easier, but wasn't a key factor and would have been possible without it) and then support it with examples of the aims that were popular (e.g. the NEP) and then use your own reasoning to argue that this helped?

 

And thanks SO MUCH for all your replies, they've really helped!!

[Guest]

 

 

Since I generally have trouble with this too, I figured I might as well ask my questions on this thread as well (if OP doesn't mind).

 

I don't understand how you're meant to weigh up factors and argue what the most important was, considering there's not that much 'hard evidence' as such?

 

Evidence does not mean statistics and numbers. Yes, those are helpful but only if they pertain to your essay topic(s). You could have events as your evidence (e.g. The ideological tensions created between the USSR and the USA due to their involvement in Germany - evidence could be discussing the Berlin Blockade and its implications, or the agreements made at the postwar conferences and how they were left unresolved).

Evidence basically means facts. Anything that is true (and no, not like TOK ) and has already happened (if that makes sense...).

You use the actual "history" and prove a point, your thesis, for the question asked.

 

Firstly, how do you then compare it in 'to what extent' questions. For example, let's say I was talking about the reasons behind World War I and was trying to argue that alliances played the biggest role in starting the war. How could you justify why you believe it's true? I mean, yes, you could give evidence in that it lead to greater tension between the countries and was the reason Austria-Hungary and Serbia were willing to take the steps they did, but how do you weigh that up against, for example, militarism and the desire of Germany and Britain to prove themselves as the greater power? Would you say that, whilst the latter only allowed for an increase in tensions, alliances lead to direct action which lead to war?

 

Yes, at least, that's what I would do. Obviously, you need to mention more than that. So specific alliances, and how it was the alliances that led to militaristic action. If you're trying to argue that alliances were the primary reason that led to the start of the war, you could also argue how it was alliances that led to militaristic action (thus covering both topics but having alliances as the base of it). Does that make sense?

 

 

Secondly, how do you provide an alternative view without completely dismissing the argument you made entirely? For example, let's say I was saying that alliances were the most important whilst a historian says that they played little role. Would you just not give evidence for why what they're saying may be true?

 

Well you wouldn't be completely dismissing your argument. The way I incorporate historiography is usually at the end of my "point" or at the end of a paragraph. If I have a lot, then I'll just make it a paragraph on it's own and discuss the validity of them all. You want to use historiography that strengthens your argument (supports your arguments) and then provide insight that you acknowledge there are other points of view (So and so said this however there are multiple interpretations of this as an American professor of history said so and so). 

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense.

 

**And keep in mind that this is simply my style of writing (so other history students, if you think this is not effective, please pitch in!) 

 

 

 

So basically, even if you don't have hard evidence (e.g. statistics), you can still put forward your argument (e.g. Stalin's aims were popular, and contributed to his rise to power) (<-- But here, do you have to make a judgment e.g. It made his rise easier, but wasn't a key factor and would have been possible without it) and then support it with examples of the aims that were popular (e.g. the NEP) and then use your own reasoning to argue that this helped?

 

And thanks SO MUCH for all your replies, they've really helped!!

 

 

I would say so. A format that I've found that's worked is the one we use for English:

 

Point

Evidence:

Reasoning

Link to the main point - I'd say here is where you say, 'Thus you can say that y was a more important contribution than x in Stalin's rise to power...' and so on.