Theme: Conflict, peace and security • Subjects: History and English A Lit • To what extent have Japanese political apologies functioned as tools for reconciliation in the aftermath of the Rape of Nanjing and the Rape of Manila?SL
Loading scores...
B
Overall Score
19/28
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Topic identification and communication
Excellent
A.2Research question formulation
Good
A.3Methodology selection and justification
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- You communicate a clear and relevant world studies topic from the start.
- Your research question is explicitly stated and invites evaluation rather than simple description.
- Your method is purposeful and fits a textual analysis of apology statements.
- You acknowledge limitations in your source set and procedure, which shows awareness of how the investigation works.
- The comparison sometimes drifts beyond the two named case studies and becomes broader than necessary.
- Your method would be stronger if you explained more clearly why each statement was selected and how the sample supports the conclusion.
- Some parts of the investigation need tighter separation between the Nanjing and Manila evidence.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Source material selection and relevance
Moderate
B.2Knowledge demonstration and application
Good
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- You show clear knowledge of Japan’s wartime violence, apology practices, reparations, and postwar diplomacy.
- You use official statements and scholarly material in a way that is generally relevant to the investigation.
- You work with accurate subject vocabulary such as apology, reconciliation, reparations, responsibility, and survivor reception.
- You often connect quoted material to your own analytical categories rather than leaving it as background information.
- Some evidence is more relevant to the wider comfort women issue or Japan’s regional diplomacy than to Nanjing and Manila specifically.
- A few claims rely on broad public-opinion data in ways that do not fully match the case-specific question.
- Some conceptual distinctions, especially around reconciliation and public approval, need to be sharper.
- There are places where the source record and bibliography could be more precise and complete.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
7/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
C.1Research quality and relevance
Moderate
C.2Analysis and conclusions
Moderate
C.3Argument structure and evaluation
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Criteria D: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
D.1Academic structure
Excellent
D.2Visual elements
Good
D.3Referencing and formatting
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.