Component 2: Depth study (Thematic studies with sources)

Explain how a depth question differs from a breadth question, and what this means for how you answer it.

1. 01Identify the depth focus

   A depth question concentrates on a short period and asks a precise question — say, how far one factor caused a specific development within a decade — requiring detailed, exact evidence.

2. 02Contrast with breadth

   A breadth question would instead ask about the direction of change across a century, requiring range and representative selection rather than fine detail.

3. 03Draw the implication

   So a depth answer must supply specific, accurate detail in support of tightly focused argument, and must be ready to evaluate contemporary sources on the period — precision over range.

Result: The depth answer is shown to require precise, detailed evidence and source evaluation on a concentrated period, in contrast to the breadth answer's range across a long span.

The paper is 150 minutes and 80 marks: 30 for the sources question, 25 for each of two essays. How should the time be split?

1. 01Reserve planning time

   Set aside about 10 minutes overall for reading the sources, planning and checking, leaving roughly 140 minutes of writing.

2. 02Allocate by marks

   Split the 140 minutes in proportion: about 52 minutes for the 30-mark sources question and about 44 minutes for each 25-mark essay.

3. 03Make it workable

   Round to a practical plan — around 50 minutes on the sources and 45 on each essay — and rehearse it in timed practice so it becomes automatic under exam pressure.

Result: A proportional plan of roughly 50 minutes on the sources question and 45 on each essay, rehearsed in advance — the discipline that ensures all three answers are completed.

Write a model evaluation paragraph for one source (described, not quoted): a report by a foreign observer visiting the country during the period, sent home to their own government. Enquiry: the true condition of the economy.

1. 01Relevant content

   Begin with what it offers: the report describes economic conditions the observer witnessed, directly relevant to the enquiry into the true state of the economy.

2. 02Provenance

   Analyse provenance: a confidential report by an outsider to their own government (nature and purpose) suggests an attempt at accurate assessment rather than propaganda, though the observer's limited access and their government's interests may shape it.

3. 03Context test and judgement

   Test against contextual knowledge of the period's economy, then judge: the outsider's confidential, assessing purpose makes the source of considerable value for the true economic condition, subject to the limits of what one visitor could see — a weighed verdict.

Result: A single integrated paragraph judging the source's value for the enquiry through provenance, content and context — the depth exam's AO2 technique in miniature.

Plan a top-band answer to a depth question of the form: 'How significant was [a named factor] in [a development within the period]?'

1. 01Thesis

   Announce a ranked judgement on the named factor's significance relative to others — for example, that it was important but not the most significant, which was another factor.

2. 02Factor paragraphs

   Devote a paragraph to the named factor and one to each rival, opening each with a mini-judgement and substantiating it with precise, period-specific detail.

3. 03Weigh and judge

   Compare the factors directly, testing the named one against the rivals, and conclude with a discriminating verdict on how significant it was and why — ranking, not listing.

Result: A factor-based plan that ranks the named factor's significance against rivals using precise detail — the analytical shape of a top depth essay.