Component 1: Breadth study (Period studies)

Explain why 'To what extent did royal authority grow across the whole period?' is a characteristic breadth question, and how it differs from a depth question.

1. 01Identify the breadth demand

   The phrase 'across the whole period' requires evidence from the start, middle and end of the century and a judgement about the long-term trend — this is a survey of change over time.

2. 02Contrast with depth

   A depth question would instead ask, say, why authority faltered in one particular decade, examined closely and through contemporary sources — narrow focus, fine detail.

3. 03Draw the implication

   So the breadth answer must range widely and select representative evidence across the span, argue the direction of long-term change, and reach a judgement about the trend rather than about a single moment.

Result: The question is characteristically breadth because it demands range across the whole span and a judgement about long-term change, not close analysis of one episode.

The paper is 150 minutes and 80 marks: 30 for interpretations, 25 for each of two essays. Roughly how should the time be split, leaving planning and checking time?

1. 01Work out the mark rate

   150 minutes for 80 marks is under two minutes a mark; reserve about 10 minutes overall for planning and checking, leaving roughly 140 minutes of writing.

2. 02Allocate in proportion

   Split the 140 minutes by marks: about 52 minutes for the 30-mark interpretations question and about 44 minutes for each 25-mark essay.

3. 03Adjust sensibly

   Round to a workable plan — say 50 minutes on interpretations and 45 on each essay, with a few minutes to plan each before writing — and practise to internalise it so it is automatic in the exam.

Result: A proportional plan of roughly 50 minutes on the interpretations question and 45 on each essay, with brief planning time — the discipline that prevents leaving an answer unfinished.

You are planning a breadth essay on whether a country's government became more centralised across a century. How do you guarantee range across the span?

1. 01Divide the span

   Split the century into an early, middle and late phase, and require yourself to supply evidence of the state of centralisation in each — this prevents clustering.

2. 02Organise by theme, not date

   Structure the essay by the dimensions of centralisation (administration, finance, control of the localities), and within each, trace the change from early to late phase.

3. 03Judge the trend

   For each theme, weigh advance against reversal, then conclude on the overall direction across the whole century — for example, uneven but net centralisation, strongest in administration and weakest in the localities.

Result: Range is guaranteed by requiring evidence from each phase and by tracing each theme across the span, producing a judgement about the long-term trend rather than one moment.

Three extracts debate whether a century was one of progress. How does the breadth setting shape your evaluation?

1. 01Recognise the long-run claim

   Each extract makes a claim about the whole period's direction, so evaluating it requires evidence from across the span, not from one dramatic decade.

2. 02Test with ranging knowledge

   For the extract arguing 'progress', marshal evidence of improvement from early, middle and late phases, then evidence of stagnation or reversal that qualifies it; do the same for the rivals.

3. 03Rank on breadth of fit

   Conclude that the most convincing interpretation is the one whose picture best fits the evidence across the whole century — perhaps a qualified account of uneven progress rather than an unbroken one.

Result: The breadth setting means each interpretation is tested against evidence from the whole span, and the ranking rewards the argument that best fits the long-run picture.