Snapshot (what it is): 1 hour 15 minutes • 25 marks • same paper for SL and HL. It’s a source-based paper on the core topics with four sources (text/images/diagrams/infographics) and four compulsory structured questions. You must use the sources and your own course knowledge.

Question structure & marks (and what each tests):

• Q1 (3 marks, AO1): shows understanding of a source (e.g., identify, describe, summarize what’s in a table/diagram).
  
  

• Q2 (4 marks, AO2): applies knowledge to analyse a source (e.g., explain a term or a claim in the source).
  
  

• Q3 (6 marks, AO3): compare and/or contrast the views/ideas/claims in two sources; organize a clear response—highest marks expect a running comparison/contrast.
  
  

• Q4 (12 marks, AO3): evaluate the sources and synthesize evidence from them with your own knowledge of the prescribed content; organize a clear, logical, coherent response.
  
  

Command terms & AO levels used in exams: AO1 (Define/Describe/Identify/List/Outline), AO2 (Analyse/Distinguish/Explain/Suggest), AO3 (Compare/Contrast/Discuss/Evaluate/Examine/Justify/Recommend/To what extent).

Rubric for Q4 (12 marks)

Paper-wide analytical markschemes are used, but Q4 also uses markbands (best-fit). Level descriptors:

• 0: Does not reach a described standard.
  
  

• 1–3: Limited grasp of the question; little relevant knowledge; references to sources mostly descriptive; no perspectives identified.
  
  

• 4–6: Some grasp; partial, sometimes inaccurate knowledge; source evidence partly integrated; perspectives identified but not explored.
  
  

• 7–9: Adequate grasp; relevant & accurate knowledge; synthesis of own knowledge and source material; perspectives explored.
  
  

• 10–12: In-depth grasp; relevant & accurate knowledge used effectively throughout; effective synthesis with appropriate examples; perspectives explored and evaluated.

What examiners look for across Paper 1

• Use relevant and accurate knowledge (including real-world cases) to support claims; when you use examples, explain or contextualize them—don’t just name-drop.
  
  

• Use global politics terminology consistently and accurately.

What strong answers do (from the guide)

• Use relevant and accurate knowledge (including real-world examples) and explain/contextualize—don’t just name-drop cases.
  
  

• Use global politics terminology precisely.

Student checklist (quick)

• Q1: Have I identified/described exactly what the source shows that the question asks for? (AO1)
  
  

• Q2: Did I explain the required term/claim using the source and my knowledge? (AO2)
  
  

• Q3: Did I pick clear points to compare/contrast across two sources, and keep the structure tight? (AO3)
  
  

• Q4: Did I evaluate the sources and synthesize them with my own, relevant course knowledge, including perspectives? (AO3)

What Q1 tests (in every session):

• AO1 (Knowledge & understanding). You show you understand the given source—for example by identifying specific elements in it or describing/summarizing information in a diagram/table. Total: 3 marks.
  
  

Typical AO1 command terms:

• Identify (give an answer from a number of possibilities) • Describe (give a detailed account) • Outline (brief account/summary) • List (brief sequence). These signal brief, source-grounded points—no analysis or opinions.
  
  

How to write a 3-mark answer (works for any Q1)

Goal: make three distinct, source-based identifications/descriptions.
Time: ~5–6 minutes (teacher guidance).

1. Read the verb (identify/describe/outline/list). Match your tone to AO1.
   
   

2. Scan the source once, then point to features visible in the source (labels, data, arrows, categories, key phrases).
   
   

3. Write three short bullets or sentences, each about one clear feature/pattern the question asks for.
   
   

4. Keep it source-only. You don’t need outside knowledge; avoid explaining “why” (that’s AO2/AO3).
   
   

Template you can copy:
• Identify/Describe/Outline: “The source shows [feature 1 as seen].”
• “It also shows [feature 2 as seen].”
• “Additionally, [feature 3 as seen].”

Quick checklist before you move on

• Did I give three separate points (not one long sentence)?
  
  

• Is each point grounded in the source (something a marker can find with their finger)?
  
  

• Did I avoid analysis/explanation/opinion (save that for Q2–Q4)?
  
  

Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• Explaining “why” → Switch to what the source shows.
  
  

• Only one broad point → Split into three discrete features/patterns.
  
  

• Adding case studies → Not needed here; Q1 is about understanding the source.
  
  

What Q2 asks:
You use your course knowledge to analyse a source. Typical prompts: explain a term used in the source or explain a claim the source makes. You should focus on the source, but you may add brief supporting knowledge from the course where relevant. Marks: 4.

AO2 command terms you’ll see (and what they mean):
Explain (give a detailed account incl. reasons/causes) • Analyse (break down to essential elements) • Distinguish (make clear the differences) • Suggest (propose a possible answer).

A workable structure (8–10 minutes total):

• Two developed points → 2 short paragraphs (2–3 sentences each).
  
  

• In each paragraph:
  
  

  1. Name the focus (the term/claim).
     
     

  2. Anchor in the source (point to a specific feature or use a very short embedded phrase).
     
     

  3. Explain why/how it works in this source’s context; add 1 sentence of own knowledge only if it sharpens the analysis.
     (Time guidance = teacher advice; the Guide sets 4 marks and AO2 focus.)
     
     

What earns marks (from the Guide, in plain language):

• You apply concepts/tools to analyse; you identify/analyse information, claims, perspectives in source material; and you use relevant knowledge to support your analysis. Keep it clear, logical, coherent.
  
  

• When using examples, don’t just name-drop—give the minimum explanation needed for this question. Use accurate terminology.
  
  

Checklist before you move on:

• Did I highlight the verb (explain/analyse/distinguish/suggest) and actually do that?
  
  

• Did I point to the source explicitly (data/phrase/feature) for each point?
  
  

• If I added own knowledge, was it brief and relevant to this source (not a mini-essay)?
  
  

• Do my two paragraphs make two distinct analytical points (not repetition)?
  
  

Common pitfalls to avoid:

• Only paraphrasing the source (no analysis).
  
  

• Long quotations; use short embedded phrases instead.
  
  

• Dropping a case study that isn’t tied back to the specific source claim.
  
  

One-sentence model: “The source explains X as [short phrase from source]; this shows [your explanation using a concept], which is consistent with [brief, relevant own knowledge], so in this context X implies [tight inference about actors/level/outcome].”

What Q3 tests (every session):

• AO3 (Evaluation & synthesis) with a direct comparison and/or contrast of two sources. Focus on specific points in the sources; you may add brief wider course knowledge only to give context. Marks: 6.
  
  

Command terms you’ll see (what they mean):

• Compare (give similarities, referring to both sources throughout) • Contrast (give differences, referring to both throughout) • Compare and contrast (do both).
  
  

How to write a 6-mark answer (works for any Q3):

• Aim for a running comparison: move back-and-forth between Source X and Source Y on each point. For top marks, IB expects a clear, logical, coherent answer with a detailed running comparison/contrast.
  
  

• Structure (about 10–12 minutes, teacher guidance):
  
  

  1. Intro line (1–2 sentences): Name the focus you’ll compare (e.g., claim, trend, perspective).
     
     

  2. Point 1 (similarity or difference): X shows … whereas/also Y shows … → one sentence to clarify the implication.
     
     

  3. Point 2: Repeat the back-and-forth.
     
     

  4. (Optional) Point 3: If you have a clear third angle (method, evidence type, scope).
     
     

  5. Mini-close (1 sentence): Sum up the overall alignment or divergence.
     
     

• Keep any own knowledge short and only to illuminate the comparison (don’t turn it into an essay).
  
  

Useful template (copy/paste):

“Both sources address [topic], but Source X [shows/claims] ___ whereas/and Source Y [shows/claims] ___. This suggests ___ in how they [frame/evidence/scope/causation]. Additionally, X ___ while/and Y ___, indicating ___.”

What examiners reward (in plain language):

• You refer to both sources throughout (not one then the other in isolation).
  
  

• You organize the answer clearly and keep the comparison on specific points from the sources.
  
  

• If you use examples/knowledge, it’s relevant and accurate, not name-dropping.
  
  

Checklist before you move on:

• Did I make at least two clear comparative points (each naming both sources)?
  
  

• Is my writing clear, logical, coherent (no list of unrelated notes)?
  
  

• Did I keep any own knowledge brief and used only for context?
  
  

Common pitfalls (and fixes):

• “Two mini-paragraphs” (X then Y) with no links → Use whereas/also/likewise/by contrast to tie them together within each point.
  
  

• Summarizing without comparing → Turn summaries into claims about similarity/difference.
  
  

• Heavy case-study dumps → Only add if it clarifies a comparison already grounded in the sources.

Paper 1 · Question 4 (AO3) — Evaluate & synthesize the sources + your own knowledge

What Q4 tests (every session):

• AO3 (Evaluation & synthesis), 12 marks. You must evaluate the sources and synthesize relevant evidence from them with your own knowledge of the prescribed content. Organize a clear, logical, coherent response.
  
  

Typical AO3 command terms:
Discuss, Evaluate, Examine, Justify, To what extent (also Compare/Contrast/Compare and contrast, if asked). These require a considered argument with weighed evidence/perspectives—not description.

A reliable structure (about 25–30 minutes)

1. Direct answer (1–2 sentences): Address the command term and set your line of argument.
   
   

2. Body 1–2: Build two or three developed points. For each point:
   
   

   • Anchor in the sources (explicit reference to what they show).
     
     

   • Add own knowledge (relevant, accurate case/concept) to extend or challenge the source.
     
     

   • Evaluate (strengths/limits; actor/level/perspective; short counterclaim).
     
     

3. Mini-conclusion (1–2 sentences): Weigh the argument (how far / to what extent) and reflect on perspectives/conditions.
   Tip: For top marks, keep a running integration of source evidence + own knowledge within each paragraph (not “sources first, knowledge later”).
   
   

Use enough sources: The specimen markscheme notes that answers using only sources or only own knowledge are capped at 8/12; to reach the top band you should refer to at least three sources.

What examiners reward (markbands in plain language)

• 10–12: In-depth understanding; relevant & accurate knowledge used effectively; effective synthesis of sources + own knowledge with appropriate examples; perspectives explored and evaluated.
  
  

• 7–9: Adequate understanding; relevant & accurate knowledge; some synthesis; perspectives explored.
  
  

• 4–6: Some understanding; partial/uneven knowledge; sources partially integrated; perspectives identified, not explored.
  
  

• 1–3: Limited understanding; little relevant knowledge; descriptive use of sources; no perspectives.
  (Q4 uses holistic markbands with a best-fit approach.)
  
  

Quick writing template you can copy

“[Command term] the claim that X. Source A indicates ___ while Source B/C show ___. Taken together, this suggests ___. However, considering [own knowledge: case/concept], the strength of this claim is [weigh it], because [perspective/assumption/level]. Therefore, to what extent…”

Checklist before you move on

• Did I answer the command term (discuss/evaluate/examine/…)?
  
  

• Have I integrated sources and own knowledge within my points (not separate)?
  
  

• Did I refer to at least three sources for top marks?
  
  

• Did I explore/evaluate perspectives (not just identify them)?
  
  

• Is the answer clear, logical, coherent throughout?
  
  

Common pitfalls (and fixes)

• Describing sources → Evaluate them and synthesize with your knowledge.
  
  

• Name-dropping cases → Give accurate, relevant examples with brief explanation.
  
  

• One-sided argument → Include counterclaims or limitations (perspectives evaluated).
  
  

Bottom line: Q4 is your mini-essay: answer the command term, integrate multiple sources with your own knowledge, and weigh perspectives to reach the 10–12 band.