IB History SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly historical, focused, and evaluative. By asking “to what extent,” the student sets up a judgment-based investigation rather than a descriptive narrative, which is exactly the sort of framing that supports sustained analysis.

This broadens the focus beyond the research question and begins to turn the essay into a general history of the Troubles. The student should keep the introduction tied more tightly to Bloody Sunday itself and only use later developments when they directly help answer the question.

If the conclusion is already stated this early, what room is left for the analysis to test alternative interpretations? The student may want to hold back the final judgment until the evidence has been weighed in detail.

This is a good place to show methodology more explicitly. The student should briefly justify why each source type was chosen and how its value or limitation was judged, rather than only listing categories of evidence.

This sentence is incomplete and leaves the reader without a finished explanation of why the topic matters. The student should revise this ending so the rationale is fully developed and clearly linked back to the investigation’s purpose.

The student is trying to define the key evaluative terms carefully, which is useful. To strengthen this further, the essay should use historical and legal definitions alongside dictionary ones so the argument about “justified” becomes more analytical and less generic.

The student uses precise factual detail to establish the scale and actors involved, which gives the discussion authority. This kind of specific evidence helps keep the historical account grounded rather than vague.

This background is too sweeping for the claim being made and is not tightly integrated with the evidence for Bloody Sunday. The student should narrow the contextual knowledge to the specific political and social conditions that directly shaped the events in Derry.

This is asserted very strongly, but the essay does not fully demonstrate the exact rules of engagement or explain how each action breached them. The student should connect the claim to the specific wording of the orders and then show precisely where the soldiers’ conduct diverged.

This is too absolute and risks overstating the evidence base of the Widgery Report. The student should verify the composition of the inquiry more carefully and avoid blanket statements unless they can be directly supported by the source material.

The student shows good understanding of why the Saville Inquiry carries more evidential weight than Widgery. This comparison is valuable because it explains not just what the inquiry concluded, but why its findings are historically significant.

This is a strong critical point, but it is left unfinished and never developed into a proper evaluation. The student should complete the thought by explaining exactly how bias might affect reliability, then weigh that limitation against the consistency of the testimony.

The student does well to use testimony as evidence rather than relying only on assertion. Quoting multiple eyewitnesses strengthens the argument because it allows the reader to see how the conclusion is built from source material.

The claim is very forceful, but it depends on weaker and less clearly established material than the rest of the analysis. The student should distinguish between confirmed evidence and contested or anecdotal allegations, especially when making moral judgments.

This causal link is asserted too confidently. The student should show more clearly how Bloody Sunday contributed to recruitment, and separate evidence of correlation from proof that the massacre directly caused the increase.

The student successfully uses a contemporary critical voice to challenge the Widgery Report’s credibility. This works well because it does more than state disagreement: it shows how the report was perceived as inadequate at the time.

If the soldiers were under pressure, does that excuse the action, or only help explain it? The student could sharpen the analysis by distinguishing between explanation, mitigation, and justification.

This conclusion is too broad because it treats all soldier testimony as equally unreliable without fully demonstrating that pattern. The student should show which testimonies were contradicted by which evidence and avoid generalising beyond what the sources support.

This is a clear presentation error that interrupts the table of contents and makes the report look unfinished. The student should correct the hyperlink or page-reference field so the contents page functions properly.

The document includes the required front matter and a logically ordered structure. This helps the reader follow the progression from introduction to analysis, conclusion, bibliography, and appendix.

The section would be easier to navigate if the introduction were broken into a few shorter analytical paragraphs with clear internal signposting. That would make the argument’s line of development more visible to the reader.

The page break leaves this thought hanging in a way that disrupts the flow of the report. The student should ensure sentences do not split awkwardly across pages where avoidable, or rework the paragraph so the transition is clearer.

The bibliography is present and clearly separated from the main text, which is an essential structural requirement. This helps the reader distinguish source listing from analysis.

Several bibliography entries are run together in a way that makes the reference list harder to read and check. The student should separate each item cleanly and keep the formatting consistent throughout the bibliography.

This page shows multiple references compressed together without clear line or item separation. The student should format each source as a distinct bibliography entry so the list is easier to verify and the presentation is more professional.

The appendix is useful because it preserves the key statement the essay relies on. To improve readability, the student could include a brief note explaining why this material was placed in the appendix and how it supports the argument.