Three days left. Paper 2 splits into your Period Study (American West or Superpower Relations and the Cold War) and your British Depth Study (Early Elizabethan England or Henry VIII and His Ministers). Here's what carries the marks and how to write it up.
One focus per day, building to a timed run. Work it in order.
Ranked from analysed past papers. Start at the top: if you run out of time, you will have covered the most-tested ground.
The clash between US government policy and Plains Indians' way of life runs through the entire American West option and is the natural anchor for the 16-mark essay on this paper, since it connects settlement, law and order, and government policy together.
Questions on why law and order was difficult to maintain, and how it changed over the period, are a recurring 8-mark and 16-mark focus because they test change over a defined timespan with named evidence (sheriffs, vigilantes, cattle towns).
If your Period Study is Superpower Relations, the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962) is the single most detailed named event on the whole course and the standard anchor for the narrative account question.
These two events explain why tension between the superpowers escalated through the 1950s-60s and are frequently paired in explain-why questions asking why relations worsened at a specific point.
The 1559 religious settlement is the foundation event of Elizabeth's reign and is assumed knowledge for almost every other question on this Depth Study, since threats to Elizabeth's rule are usually framed as religious threats.
The named plots (Ridolfi, Throckmorton, Babington) culminating in Mary's execution in 1587 are the classic source-inference and interpretations focus for this Depth Study, because they generate genuinely contested historical debate.
The break with Rome (1533-34) is the hinge point of the whole Depth Study, since it explains why Wolsey failed and why Cromwell became indispensable. Almost every essay question on this option connects back to it.
Cromwell's role in the Reformation Parliament and the dissolution of the monasteries is the most tested individual-significance topic on this Depth Study, a natural fit for the how-far-agree essay.
PrepWise has a one-page Knowledge Organiser for the topics above. In your final 3 days, use them the same way each time: cover the page, try to recall everything from memory, uncover and check what you missed, then repeat that topic again tomorrow.
Rules specific to Paper 2. On this paper, structure earns as many marks as knowledge.
Section A opens with a short-answer question, then a narrative account question worth 8 marks ('write an account of...'), then a 16-mark 'how far do you agree' essay with a given statement. Time these at roughly 5, 12 and 20 minutes across the 52-53 minutes available for this half.
'Write an account of the way in which...' wants a sequence of events in order, each linked to the next with a connective that shows cause ('this led to...', 'which meant that...'). A list of unconnected facts, even if accurate, will not reach the top level.
When asked which interpretation is more convincing, you must use your OWN knowledge as evidence to test both interpretations, not just describe what each one says. State which you find more convincing and explain why using specific facts you know.
When asked how useful a source is for a specific enquiry, consider what it shows, who produced it and why, when it was produced, and what it does not tell you. A source summary with no evaluation of its origin and purpose scores lower even with accurate content.
You are given a statement naming one factor. Explain it in full first, then bring in at least one other factor and explain it with the same depth, then give a clear judgement that directly answers 'how far do you agree' in your conclusion.
The errors examiners see most on this paper. Each one is an easy mark you already know how to keep.
Writing the narrative account as a list of facts with no links between events → Every sentence should connect to the next with a word or phrase that shows cause or consequence. Facts alone, however accurate, will not reach the higher levels without those links.
Summarising both interpretations instead of judging which is more convincing → State clearly which interpretation you find more convincing and use your own specific knowledge to explain why, referencing what each interpretation actually claims.
Only exploring the named factor in the 16-mark essay → The question names one factor to test your knowledge of it specifically, but full marks require at least one further factor explained to the same depth, followed by a comparative judgement.
Treating a source's provenance as an afterthought → Provenance (who wrote it, when, and why) should shape your judgement of how useful the source is, not just be mentioned in passing at the end of your answer.
Confusing the timeframes of your Period Study and Depth Study → Keep the two halves separate in your revision. Mixing up dates or figures between American West/Cold War and Elizabethan England/Henry VIII loses marks even when the underlying knowledge is otherwise correct.
The 60 minutes before you walk in. Review what you know and settle your nerves.
Knowing the content is only half of it. Practise exam-style History questions in PrepWise, get marked instantly, and check your answers are built the way the mark scheme wants.
Open the History Knowledge Organisers, quiz every priority topic and walk in ready. Free during alpha.
Get started with your personalised revision