Revision NotesExam QuestionsFlashcardsPast Papers
GCSEHistoryEdexcelModern Depth Study (Paper 3)Revision NotesRussia & the Soviet Union, 1917–41Exam Skills: Russia & the Soviet Union, 1917–41The 16 Mark "How Far Do You Agree with Interpretation 2" Question

The 16 Mark "How Far Do You Agree with Interpretation 2" Question (Edexcel GCSE History): Revision Note

Exam code: 1HI0

Zoe Wade

Written by: Zoe Wade

Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett

Updated on

Summary of Question 3 (d)

  • Question 3 (d) requires you to:

    • Evaluate the topic outlined in the question

    • Use both Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2

      • This will help you to have a balanced argument

    • Come to an overall judgement on how far you agree with the topic outlined in the question

  • You should use Sources B and C in your answer:

    • They count as your own knowledge

  • The interpretations used in Questions 3 (b) and 3 (c) will be the same ones used in this question

  • Like the 16 mark question in Paper 1, you are awarded four marks for Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG)

Amount of marks 

16 marks + 4 SPaG marks

The time that you should spend on the question 

5 minutes of planning

20 minutes of writing

Below is an example of the type of question you may encounter:

An exam question asking how far you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impacts of the New Economic Policy, requiring the use of both interpretations and historical context. Worth 16 marks.
An example of Question 3 (d) for Paper 3

Making judgements in history

  • The 16 mark question requires you to weigh all the evidence and make a decision

    • Students often find this part the hardest to do 

Common mistakes in judgement questions

  • Explaining that all of the reasons are the most important 

  • Avoiding a clear decision by using phrases like “kind of” or “maybe”

  • Giving no opinion

  • Changing your argument halfway through:

    • In the example question, you state in the introduction that you fully agree with Interpretation 2

    • However, in the conclusion, you state that you partially agree with Interpretation 2

    • Doing this means that there is not a sustained judgement and you cannot access Level 4 (13–16 marks) 

What makes a good judgement?

  • Explain how convincing you find Interpretation 2

  • Consider the other interpretation

    • Even if you fully agree with Interpretation 2, you must also evaluate Interpretation 1

  • Have a consistent judgement from start to finish

  • Use your best evidence to back up your decision

    • There is no "right" or "wrong" answer in history

What makes a great conclusion in GCSE History?

  • Conclusions are usually where most of your judgement marks will be awarded

  • All great conclusions have these three elements:

    • Judgement — State how far you agree with Interpretation 2

    • Counter — Introduce an argument against your judgement

    • Support — Use your strongest evidence to explain why you have reached your judgement on Interpretation 2

How to get SPaG marks

  • In Paper 3, students have access to an additional four marks for answering Question 3 (d)

  • This is awarded for SPaG (Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar)

SPaG Mark

Reason for This Mark

0

  • The student writes nothing

  • The student makes too many mistakes in spelling, grammar or content

1

  • The student has basic control over spelling and grammar

  • The student uses a limited range of specialist terms in their answer

2–3

  • The student spells and punctuates well

  • The student has good grammar

  • The student uses a good range of specialist terms

4

  • The student consistently spells and punctuates well

  • The student has excellent grammar

  • The student uses a wide range of specialist terms

Top tips for boosting SPaG marks

  • Spell historical terms correctly

  • Use paragraphs

  • Re-read your work for punctuation

  • Reading the answer in your head

    • Where you would take a breath, make sure there is a comma or full stop

How to answer a "How far do you agree with Interpretation 2?" question

  • This question asks you how far you agree with Interpretation 2 on a specific topic:

    • It will be the same topic and interpretations you used in 3 (b) and 3 (c)

    • In the example question, this topic is "The impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)"

  • To answer this question successfully, you should:

    • Read the answer carefully and multiple times (if you have the time)

    • Annotate:

      • The question to know the topic

      • The interpretations, to come to a judgement

      • The sources, to select what information you can use to help support your judgement

    • Plan your answer, including:

      • What parts of the interpretations and sources you wish to use

      • An outline of your opinion about Interpretation 2

A colourful educational spider diagram used to plan an answer to the question: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)?” The diagram is split into multiple colour-coded sections: Header Section (Pink): Title: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)?” Subtitle: “Planning a question using a spider diagram” Top Left (Green – Agreement with Interpretation 2): Interpretation 2: “There was a steady rise in productivity.” Supporting evidence: “Peasants were allowed to sell extra grain for profit.” “Some private trade and small businesses reopened.” Peel 1: “Agree – NEP improved farming and markets in the early 1920s.” Top Right (Purple – Disagreement): Interpretation 1: “Impoverished and restless urban labour force.” Supporting evidence: Source C mentions peasants were “haggard and undernourished.” Own knowledge: Grain production was still low until the mid-1920s; famine hit hard by 1921. Even Interpretation 2 acknowledges “agricultural production were regained by 1926,” indicating slow progress. Peel 2: “Disagree – Peasants still struggled and famine continued.” Mid-Section (Bright pink bar): Repeated question: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)?” Bottom Left (Orange – Further Disagreement): Peel 3: “Disagree – NEP led to inequality and tensions in society.” Supporting detail: Interpretation 1: “Class and regional disparities grew.” Own knowledge: Some peasants (Nepmen or kulaks) got rich while workers remained poor. Interpretation 2 fails to acknowledge this, only noting that the NEP could have gained “support of the peasantry” if it ran longer. Bottom Right (Blue – Conclusion): “Overall, I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2. Whilst it acknowledges that positive impacts took time, it focuses on short-term improvements in production and ignores the serious social problems the NEP created.”
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark Russia answer using a spider diagram
This educational image is a colour-coded planning table to help students structure an answer to the question: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)?” It is structured into five rows: Peel 1, Peel 2, Peel 3, and Conclusion. Peel 1 – Agree – NEP improved farming and markets in the early 1920s Point: Agree with Interpretation 2 (“There was a steady rise in productivity”). Evidence: Peasants were allowed to sell extra grain for profit. Some private trade and small businesses reopened. Explanation: These reforms helped stimulate the economy by incentivising productivity and allowing a degree of capitalism after War Communism. Peel 2 – Disagree – Peasants still struggled and famine continued Interpretation 1: Quotes a “restless and impoverished urban labour force”. Source C: Describes peasants as “haggard and undernourished”. Own knowledge: Grain production was still low until the mid-1920s. Famine had hit hard by 1921. Criticism: Even Interpretation 2 admits that agricultural production wasn’t regained until 1926 – five years after the NEP started. Peel 3 – Disagree – NEP led to inequality and tensions in society Interpretation 1: Mentions “class and regional disparities grew”. Own knowledge: Some peasants (e.g. Nepmen or kulaks) became rich while workers remained poor. Interpretation 2 flaw: It claims the NEP gained “support of the peasantry” but ignores growing divisions and inequality. Conclusion Judgement: “Overall, I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2.” Reasoning: While it mentions long-term improvements, it ignores serious social problems and inequalities caused by the NEP. It is too focused on productivity and not on its broader consequences.
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark Russia answer using a table

"How far do you agree with Interpretation 2?" question structure

  • Your answer should include:

    • A logical structure

    • Both Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2

    • The use of Source B and Source C

      • Do not use Source A, as you will not be rewarded any marks for your comments

    • An explanation based on the demands of the question

    • A clear and sustained judgement throughout the answer

    • A conclusion

      • If you want to include an introduction, you can, but it is not necessary 

  • Your answers could be written in PEEL paragraphs: 

    • P — Make a point about the question

      • This should include your judgement on Interpretation 2 

    • E — Use evidence that supports the point that you have made

      • Evidence can come from Source B and Source C, or your own knowledge

    • E — Explain why this evidence supports your point

      • Your explanation should focus on how much you agree with Interpretation 2

    • L — Link your explanation back to the question to help sustain your argument and show your understanding of the question

  • The question is out of 20 marks:

    • 16 marks are awarded for the analysis and evaluation of the interpretations (In)

    • 4 marks are awarded for Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (SPaG)

      • This is an overall mark, not awarded in specific areas of your answer

Worked example of a "How far do you agree with Interpretation 2?" question

Worked Example

3 (d) How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the New Economic Policy (NEP)?

Explain your answer, using both interpretations and your own knowledge of the historical context.

(16)

Source B: Black and white photo of a crowded Russian market in 1921 with people gathered around market stalls under a wooden canopy. Source C: From an autobiography of an American journalist, Raymond Gram Swing, written in 1964.​ "Before boarding our boat, we visited the market, where, under the so-called New Economic Policy recently adopted by Lenin, we watched the peasants selling food for their personal profit, food they had grown on their small private garden plots. But the peasants had little food to sell, and they themselves were haggard and undernourished. We bought some black bread and goat cheese to eat on the boat. I have never seen a more harrowing sight than people starving to death."
Interpretation 1 — From Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, M. Mazower, published in 1998​. As those with access to markets prospered, the NEP opened up increasing economic inequalities among different groups. Class and regional disparities grew — between richer peasants, wandering tradesmen, and an impoverished and restless urban labour force — and these threatened the always fragile cohesion of the entire economy. In fact, the NEP made Soviet growth rates dependent upon the market behaviour of workers and peasants, not the Party or the state. Interpretation 2 — From A People's Tragedy, O. Figes, published in 1996.​ There was a steady rise in productivity. The 1913 levels of agricultural production were regained by 1926, and surpassed over the next two years. The harvest yields of the mid-1920s were 17% higher than those of the 1900s, the so-called 'golden age' of Russian agriculture. If it had continued for a few more years, the NEP might have overseen the development of a significant collective farming sector to feed the urban sector more efficiently with the support of the peasantry.

Answer:

I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the NEP. Although it highlights some improvements to farming and trade, it ignores the wider social problems and tensions that the NEP created (In).

Interpretation 2 argues that the NEP helped increase agricultural production. Figes claims that “there was a steady rise in productivity” and that harvests improved compared to earlier periods. This is partly supported by my own knowledge. Lenin introduced the NEP in 1921 to recover from the failures of War Communism. Peasants were allowed to sell any surplus grain for profit, which encouraged some to grow more food. Small businesses and private trade reopened, and this helped revive local markets and farming communities in the short term (In). This supports Interpretation 2’s view that the NEP did improve production and markets in the early 1920s. Therefore, it is correct to acknowledge the positive economic impacts that the NEP had on Russia (In).

However, Interpretation 2 is too optimistic and ignores serious ongoing struggles. Interpretation 1 describes an “impoverished and restless urban labour force”, which shows that not everyone benefited from the NEP. Source C supports this by describing peasants as “haggard and undernourished” with “little food to sell” (In). I know that food shortages were especially severe in Ukraine. Even with the introduction of the NEP, recovery was slow, and many peasants remained undernourished. Even Interpretation 2 admits that agricultural production was only “regained by 1926”, showing that these improvements took five years. Therefore, although some progress was made, many peasants remained in poverty and faced hardship, which weakens the claim that the NEP had a major positive impact (In).

I also disagree with Interpretation 2 because it overlooks how the NEP increased inequality and tensions in Soviet society. Interpretation 1 argues that “class and regional disparities grew” (In). Some peasants, known as kulaks, became wealthier, while others remained poor. Traders and Nepmen also made private profits, which caused resentment among workers and loyal Communists. These divisions created tensions within the new Soviet system. Interpretation 2 claims that if the NEP had lasted longer, it would have gained the “support of the peasantry”, but it does not recognise the conflicts and inequality the policy created (In). This makes its view less convincing overall.

In conclusion, I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2. Whilst I agree that the NEP improved agricultural production and helped recovery after War Communism, it focuses too much on these short-term improvements and ignores the bigger social problems (In). Interpretation 1 gives a more balanced view of the social divisions and inequalities that the NEP caused. The NEP may have helped some groups, but it did not create lasting stability. This explains why it was abandoned in 1928 (In).

Unlock more, it's free!

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

    Previous:Comparing Interpretations QuestionsNext:The 4 Mark "Give Two Things You Can Infer" Question
    Author
    Reviewer
    Zoe Wade

    Author: Zoe Wade

    Expertise: History Content Creator

    Zoe has worked in education for 10 years as a teaching assistant and a teacher. This has given her an in-depth perspective on how to support all learners to achieve to the best of their ability. She has been the Lead of Key Stage 4 History, showing her expertise in the Edexcel GCSE syllabus and how best to revise. Ever since she was a child, Zoe has been passionate about history. She believes now, more than ever, the study of history is vital to explaining the ever-changing world around us. Zoe’s focus is to create accessible content that breaks down key historical concepts and themes to achieve GCSE success.

    Bridgette Barrett

    Reviewer: Bridgette Barrett

    Expertise: Geography, History, Religious Studies & Environmental Studies Subject Lead

    After graduating with a degree in Geography, Bridgette completed a PGCE over 30 years ago. She later gained an MA Learning, Technology and Education from the University of Nottingham focussing on online learning. At a time when the study of geography has never been more important, Bridgette is passionate about creating content which supports students in achieving their potential in geography and builds their confidence.