IB History SL Extended Essay Example

This is a strong methodological choice because the student recognises both the value and limitation of a memoir as evidence. That shows awareness of source purpose and perspective, which is exactly what a sound historical method needs.

The historiography is too compressed here. The student should distinguish more carefully between ideational, revisionist, and other internal explanations, because grouping them together blurs important disagreements and weakens the precision of the method.

The research question is clearly signposted and the line of argument is explicit from the outset. This helps the reader understand what the essay is trying to prove and makes the investigation easy to follow.

What criteria were used to choose these primary sources, and how do they specifically help test the research question rather than simply illustrate it? Making that selection logic explicit would strengthen the method.

This section begins broadly and then widens further into several separate causes. The student should narrow the investigation by defining exactly which economic indicators will be used to judge “importance,” otherwise the essay risks becoming a survey rather than a focused comparison.

This sentence is methodologically vague and grammatically imprecise, which makes the argument harder to trust. The student should state clearly which historians are being grouped as revisionists and what evidence they use to explain Gorbachev’s role.

This is a mature use of source awareness. The student shows that economic claims are not neutral facts and that different sources can produce conflicting pictures, which strengthens the historical understanding behind the argument.

This evidence is relevant, but the essay needs to explain more clearly why this figure matters for the research question. The student should connect the statistic directly to state capacity, legitimacy, or comparative importance rather than leaving it as stand-alone information.

The comparison is useful, but the percentage alone is not enough to establish significance. The student should clarify the source, the basis of the calculation, and whether the figure is directly comparable to the Soviet percentage given earlier.

This is a strong example of source interpretation because the student does not simply quote the memoir; the student also questions its motives and audience. That helps show understanding of how primary sources can be both informative and self-serving.

The claim is plausible, but it is too general as written. The student should identify what specific criticism, in which country, and through which mechanism this politicisation affected the wider Soviet collapse.

This is an important regional link, but the wording is too vague and slightly awkward. The student should name the particular Polish economic conditions or indicators being discussed so the reader can see exactly how the source material supports the claim.

This sentence bundles together internal policy choices and external pressures without separating them analytically. The student should distinguish between causes that Moscow chose to pursue and pressures imposed from outside, because that distinction matters for evaluating “most important.”

The student is doing analytical work here by linking economic dependence to vulnerability rather than just describing decline. That causal reasoning is effective and should be replicated in other sections.

How far was Comecon itself the cause of decline, and how far was it a symptom of a broader Soviet economic weakness? Clarifying that distinction would make the causal argument much sharper.

This conclusion overstates certainty. The student should avoid words like “undeniably” unless the essay has fully weighed alternative explanations, because the research question is comparative and requires a more measured judgement of relative importance.

The causal chain here is oversimplified. The student should explain which mechanisms made Perestroika destabilising, because reform itself did not automatically produce collapse; its effects depended on implementation, resistance, and existing weakness.

This claim needs much stronger support because it is both important and potentially misleading. The student should verify the figure and explain exactly how it was calculated; otherwise the argument about Reagan’s pressure becomes unreliable.

The analysis here is relevant, but it would be stronger if it considered the limits of papal influence. The student should show why the Pope mattered more than domestic Polish economic conditions or Solidarity’s own organisation.

The conclusion shows genuine evaluative judgment by returning to the comparative wording of the question. This is effective because it directly answers the research question rather than simply restating the essay’s content.

The contents page would be stronger if the section titles matched the terminology used in the body more closely and followed one consistent style. Small presentation improvements like this make the essay easier to scan and give it a more polished academic feel.

The structure is clear and easy to navigate. A dedicated contents page helps the reader follow the progression from historiography to economics, Gorbachev, Reagan, Poland, and the conclusion.

The section title is understandable, but it is slightly awkward and inconsistent with the rest of the headings. A more precise title such as “Reagan and external pressure” would better signal the analytical focus.

The investigation includes the required bibliography and separates sources into useful categories. That organisation supports readability and shows awareness of academic presentation conventions.

The referencing format is inconsistent here and throughout the bibliography. The student should standardise punctuation, author names, and source details so that the evidence can be traced more reliably.