IB History HL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent did the New Deal bring economic recovery during the Great Depression in the 1930s and 1940s?

The inclusion of “1940s” in the research question may blur the temporal scope, since many New Deal policies ended by the late 1930s. This ambiguity could weaken the historical precision.

The research question is clearly formulated, focusing on the New Deal’s economic recovery and inviting analytical judgment. This clarity supports a robust investigation.

Clarify the chronological frame by specifying whether the analysis extends through early wartime recovery or strictly the interwar New Deal era to sharpen the investigation’s focus.

Section 1 effectively links two contrasting sources to the research question, demonstrating clear relevance and setting up a balanced examination of economic recovery interpretations.

The first evaluation paragraph ends abruptly (“Nevertheless, the…”), suggesting that a key limitation or counterargument is missing. Completing this thought is essential for a balanced OPVL.

Ensure each source evaluation finishes the discussion of limitations and ties back to your investigation’s needs to maintain analytic coherence.

The origin and bias analysis of Higgs’s article aptly balances his economic expertise with libertarian leanings, showing clear relevance and limitations.

The OPVL analysis of Kennedy’s origin and purpose is well developed, highlighting his academic standing and the source’s objective counterevidence role.

The evaluation lacks specific content examples (e.g., direct quotes or data points) from Kennedy’s article. Adding these will strengthen the linkage of OPVL to your analysis.

The introduction situates the Depression context well but lacks a concise thesis statement outlining your main argument and the structure of subsequent analysis.

The contextual background on unemployment, bank failures, and New Deal & WWII linkage is clear and guides the reader into the investigation’s focus.

Superscript coding artifacts (e.g. “¹”) interrupt readability. Replace with proper footnote markers to maintain professional presentation.

The quantitative evidence on reduced bank failures powerfully illustrates the New Deal’s impact on financial stability.

Integrate critical analysis of housing programs by discussing potential drawbacks (e.g., segregation in FHA projects) to deepen your evaluation.

The transition from banking to housing analysis lacks a clear linking sentence. A brief connector would enhance narrative flow between these sectors.

Consider splitting the employment discussion into shorter paragraphs, each comparing New Deal and wartime unemployment trends to sharpen contrast.

The multiple sources on war‐related employment are well integrated to substantiate how WWII created dramatic job growth.

Long sentences packed with multiple statistics and citations hamper readability. Break them into focused arguments to maintain reader engagement.

Add a visual element (table or graph) for GNP trends to clarify rapid fluctuations and support your textual analysis.

GNP percentages (33 %, –5 %, +49 %) are effectively employed to show economic fluctuations across eras.

The GNP data needs clearer contextualization (e.g., base years, sector breakdown) to avoid misinterpretation and enhance analytical depth.

Strengthen the conclusion by explicitly referencing data (e.g., “unemployment fell to 1.2 % in 1944”) to anchor your judgment in evidence.

The concluding synthesis on page 8 asserts overall impact without directly citing key evidence such as employment or GNP figures, weakening its persuasiveness.

The critique of Higgs’s data distortion argument deepens your critical analysis by questioning the real impact of wartime mobilization.

The reflection remains fairly general and lacks engagement with specific historiographical frameworks or debates that could deepen methodological insight.

Enhance the reflection by naming specific historiographical approaches (e.g., quantitative history, social history) to illustrate deeper method awareness.

The reflection clearly discusses historians’ methods—source selection, credibility evaluation, and quantitative handling—which addresses methodological focus.

Consider reflecting on specific challenges encountered in interpreting incomplete data or navigating archival gaps to showcase deeper methodological reflection.

The second reflection paragraph revisits source bias concerns that were already discussed, leading to redundancy rather than new insight.

The reflection on page 10 ties observations directly to your investigation (e.g., conflict of source interpretations), fulfilling the connection criterion.