How to Answer a 12-Mark 'Analyse' Question (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note
Exam code: 9PL0
What is a 12-mark 'Analyse' question?
Section B of Paper 3 is one compulsory 12-mark question that starts "Analyse…"
Paper 3A (USA) compares the USA and the UK
Paper 3B (Global Politics) compares realism and liberalism
On Paper 3B, the question comes from the comparative theories topic, the last topic of the option
On Paper 3A, the question can come from any topic, but you must explain the difference using at least one comparative theory
The question at a glance
Marks | 12 |
|---|---|
Where it appears | Section B, question 2, on Paper 3A and Paper 3B |
Assessment objectives | AO1 6 marks AO2 6 marks |
Suggested time | About 17 minutes |
Suggested length | About 300–350 words in three paragraphs |
Command words and assessment objectives
"Analyse" means you explain the differences (or similarities) the question names and show why they exist
AO3 (evaluation) is not assessed, so you do not need a judgement or a conclusion
The two assessment objectives carry equal marks:
AO1 (knowledge and understanding): accurate, specific examples and theories
AO2 (analysis): comparing the two sides directly, with chains of reasoning that explain each difference
Paper 3A (USA)
Every question compares the USA and the UK, and prints this line under the question:
"In your answer you must consider the relevance of at least one comparative theory." (Paper 3A, June 2025)
The comparative theories are rational, cultural and structural theory
Rational theory: individuals act in the way that gives them the best outcome
Cultural theory: the shared ideas and values of a group shape how its members act
Structural theory: formal institutions and processes shape political outcomes
Examples from recent papers:
"Analyse how the US and the UK constitutions differ." (Paper 3A, June 2025)
"Analyse how devolution in the UK differs from federalism in the USA." (Paper 3A, June 2024 (opens in a new tab))
Paper 3B (Global)
Every question compares realism and liberalism, and prints this line under the question:
"In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas." (Paper 3B, June 2025)
Core political ideas are conservatism, liberalism and socialism from Paper 1, so this is a synoptic link
Examples from recent papers:
"Analyse the differences between the realist and liberal views of the inevitability of war." (Paper 3B, June 2025)
"Analyse how realism and liberalism differ over the main ideas of the anarchical society and society of states theory." (Paper 3B, June 2024)
How is a 12-mark 'Analyse' question marked?
The examiner reads the whole answer and places it in one of four levels
There are no marks for evaluation, so an introduction, a judgement or a conclusion earns nothing
Level | Marks |
|---|---|
4 | 10–12 |
3 | 7–9 |
2 | 4–6 |
1 | 1–3 |
Level caps on Paper 3A
An answer about only one country cannot go above Level 1 (3 marks)
“Candidates who refer to only one named country cannot achieve beyond Level 1.” (mark scheme 9PL0/3A, June 2025 (opens in a new tab))
An answer with no comparative theory cannot go above Level 3 (9 marks)
“Candidates who do not make any comparative theory points cannot achieve beyond Level 3.” (mark scheme 9PL0/3A, June 2025)
Level caps on Paper 3B
An answer about only one theory cannot go above Level 1 (3 marks)
“Candidates who refer to only one named theory cannot achieve beyond Level 1.” (mark scheme 9PL0/3B, June 2025 (opens in a new tab))
An answer with no synoptic point, a link to a core political idea, cannot go above Level 3 (9 marks)
“Candidates who do not make any synoptic points cannot achieve beyond Level 3.” (mark scheme 9PL0/3B, June 2025)
What separates the top levels
Level 3 (7–9 marks) answers contain mostly accurate knowledge, mostly focused comparison and relevant theory points (3A) or synoptic points (3B)
Level 4 (10–12 marks) answers contain accurate, carefully chosen knowledge, consistent comparison with coherent chains of reasoning and cohesive theory points (3A) or synoptic points (3B)
The difference is mostly in how well the theory or core idea is built into the comparison, not how many you mention
How to answer a 12-mark 'Analyse' question
Step 1: Read the question and find the focus
Underline what you are comparing and whether the question asks for differences or similarities
Example: in “Analyse the differences between the powers of the US president and the UK Prime Minister.", you need differences in powers, not how each leader is chosen
Step 2: Plan three points of comparison
Spend about 2 minutes choosing three points, one for each paragraph
On Paper 3A, each point should be a difference between the USA and the UK, with evidence from both countries
On Paper 3B, plan the paragraphs like this:
paragraph 1 on the realist view, showing how it differs from liberalism
paragraph 2 on the liberal view, showing how it differs from realism
paragraph 3 on both views together, with your synoptic link to a core political idea
Step 3: Build in the theory or core idea
Paper 3A: name a comparative theory and explain how it accounts for the difference in both countries
You do not need all three theories, but using one in each paragraph keeps you safe from the Level 3 cap
Paper 3B: make a developed link between the two theories and a core political idea, such as Hobbes’s pessimistic view of human nature or Locke’s more optimistic one, and the third paragraph is the natural place for it
Step 4: Write three paragraphs, with no introduction or conclusion
Start each paragraph with the difference, then give evidence from both sides and explain why the difference exists
Spend about 5 minutes on each paragraph
Bolting the theory on:
"The US president has a fixed four-year term. The UK Prime Minister can be removed by their party. This is a structural difference."
Building the theory into the comparison:
"A structural approach explains this difference, because the formal rules of each system shape how secure each leader is. The US separation of powers gives the president a fixed four-year term, while in the UK's fusion of powers the Prime Minister depends on the support of their MPs."
What if?
You can only think of one theory for a 3A question: use it, as long as you explain it for both countries
One well-explained theory built into one developed point is enough to reach Level 4 if the rest of the answer is strong
A 3B question names another theory, such as the anarchical society: still compare realism and liberalism
Show how each theory views the ideas of the named theory, and keep your synoptic link
Worked Example
Paper 3A
Analyse the differences between the powers of the US president and the UK Prime Minister.
In your answer you must consider the relevance of at least one comparative theory.
[12 marks]
Model answer:
The president's powers come from Article II of the US Constitution, while most of the Prime Minister's powers come from the royal prerogative and convention. [AO1] The president's powers are therefore fixed in a codified document, while the Prime Minister's can change with political circumstances. [AO2] A structural approach explains this difference, because the formal rules of each system shape how secure each leader is. [AO2] The US separation of powers gives the president a fixed four-year term, so Donald Trump stayed in office after two impeachments because the Senate did not convict him. [AO1] In the UK's fusion of powers, the Prime Minister depends on the support of the Commons and their own MPs, so Liz Truss left office in 2022 after only 49 days. [AO1]
A Prime Minister with a Commons majority has far more power over legislation than a president. [AO2] Boris Johnson's 80-seat majority passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act in January 2020. [AO1] The president can only recommend, sign or veto bills, so Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan stalled in the Senate in 2021 even though his party controlled Congress. [AO1] A cultural approach explains this. [AO2] UK MPs share a strong culture of party loyalty, enforced by the whips, so they usually vote with their leader. [AO2] Members of Congress owe their seats to primaries and their own voters, so party loyalty is weaker and the president has to persuade rather than command. [AO2]
The president is commander-in-chief, but treaties need the approval of two-thirds of the Senate and only Congress can declare war. [AO1] The Prime Minister can deploy troops and sign treaties under the royal prerogative, so faces weaker formal limits. [AO2] However, since the Iraq War vote in 2003, Prime Ministers have usually asked the Commons to vote before major military action. [AO1] A rational approach explains why. [AO2] When the Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013, David Cameron accepted the result, because ignoring his MPs would have weakened him. [AO2] A president's term does not depend on Congress, so Trump ordered missile strikes on Syria in 2017 without asking Congress for approval. [AO1]
Mark allocation:
[AO1] knowledge and understanding, [AO2] analysis
This answer reaches Level 4 (10–12 marks) because:
every paragraph compares the USA and the UK directly, with evidence from both
each paragraph builds a different comparative theory into the explanation of the difference
there is no introduction, conclusion or judgement, so all the time goes on creditable points
Common errors:
Describing the president in one paragraph and the Prime Minister in the next, without comparing them
Adding "this is a structural difference" at the end of a point without explaining it
Writing about how each leader is elected, which is not about their powers
Alternative content:
The power to appoint, comparing the Senate's confirmation of Cabinet members with the Prime Minister's freedom to reshuffle
Rational theory applied to presidents who use executive orders when Congress will not pass their bills
Worked Example
Paper 3B
Analyse the differences between realist and liberal views of the impact of international organisations.
In your answer you must discuss any relevant core political ideas.
[12 marks]
Model answer:
Unlike liberals, realists argue that states are the key actors in global politics and that international organisations have little independent impact. [AO1] Because the global system is anarchic, with no authority above the state, realists see international organisations as tools that powerful states use to pursue their national interest. [AO2] The UN Security Council shows this, because each of its five permanent members holds a veto. [AO1] In February 2022, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning its invasion of Ukraine, so the UN could not act against a great power. [AO1] For realists, international organisations work only when they serve the most powerful states, so state sovereignty and the balance of power remain the real sources of order. [AO2]
Unlike realists, liberals argue that international organisations can change how states behave. [AO1] Keohane and Nye's idea of complex interdependence holds that states are linked by trade, international organisations and shared problems, so cooperation brings greater benefits than conflict. [AO1] International organisations build trust by setting rules that states expect each other to follow, which makes conflict less likely. [AO2] The European Union shows this, because states that fought each other in two world wars now settle disagreements through shared institutions. [AO1] For liberals, international organisations are therefore a route to global governance, not simply tools of the strongest states. [AO2]
The two theories differ most over human nature, which links to core political ideas. [AO2] Realists share the pessimistic view of human nature found in conservatism, and Hobbes argued that without a sovereign to keep order, self-interested individuals would live in constant conflict. [AO1] Realists apply this to states, so they expect states to distrust any international organisation that cannot enforce its rules. [AO2] Liberal theorists draw on the more optimistic view of human nature in liberalism, and Locke argued that humans are rational and can live together under agreed rules. [AO1] Liberals apply this to states, so they expect international organisations to make cooperation normal over time. [AO2] Both theories accept that the global system is anarchic, but realists believe anarchy limits what international organisations can do, while liberals believe international organisations can reduce its effects. [AO2]
Mark allocation:
[AO1] knowledge and understanding, [AO2] analysis
This answer reaches Level 4 (10–12 marks) because:
both theories are compared throughout, not just described one after the other
each view is supported by a real example, the Security Council and the EU
the third paragraph makes a developed synoptic link to Hobbes and Locke
Common errors:
Describing realism, then liberalism, without linking either to the question's focus
Leaving out the core political ideas, which holds an otherwise strong answer at Level 3
Writing a conclusion that judges which theory is right, which earns no marks
Alternative content:
The realist view that the security dilemma limits what international organisations can do
The socialist view, linked to Marx, that human nature is shaped by social and economic conditions, which supports the liberal view that state behaviour can change
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Treat the theory, or the core political idea, as the reason for each difference, not a label at the end. If every paragraph answers "why are these two different?" with a theory or core idea that you explain for both sides, the examiner can see your analysis at work in every paragraph.
Unlock more, it's free!
Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams
the (exam) results speak for themselves:
Was this revision note helpful?
