Revision NotesExam QuestionsFlashcardsPast Papers
GCSEHistoryEdexcelModern Depth Study (Paper 3)Revision NotesThe USA, 1954–75: Conflict at Home & AbroadExam Skills: The USA, 1954–75: Conflict at Home & AbroadThe 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

An example of the type of question you may encounter can be seen below:

Exam question asks for agreement with Interpretation 2 on media's impact on Vietnam War opposition, using both interpretations and historical context. (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 such as "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 — Mention a reason from the other side

    • 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 4 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 spells and punctuates well consistently

  • 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

  • Reread your work for punctuation

  • Reading the answer in your head

    • Where you would take a breath, make sure there is a comma or a 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 media on opposition to the Vietnam War"

  • 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 visual revision diagram titled "How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the media on opposition to the Vietnam War?", structured as a spider diagram for planning an answer. Top Section: Question Title: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the media on opposition to the Vietnam War?” Instruction Box: “Planning a question using a spider diagram” (bright pink background) Main Planning Points (Centre-Top): Purple box: “Interpretation 2 – By 1968, ‘the public had given us four years, their money and their sons.’” Another purple box below: Own knowledge about the Tet Offensive in 1968 – it made many Americans believe the war was unwinnable. It undermined US generals’ claims that victory was close and damaged trust in leadership. Intro Box (Green): “I mostly agree – I think media was the main reason for opposition” Labelled Intro. Peel 1 – Agree (Purple): Title: “Peel 1 – Agree – Unclear goals made people lose trust” Supports the idea that media coverage of the war revealed inconsistencies in government claims. Middle Divider: Repeats the question: "How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the media on opposition to the Vietnam War?" in a bold pink banner. Peel 2 – Disagree (Orange): Title: “Peel 2 – Disagree – Interpretation 1 is more convincing – it reflects the power of the media” Includes: Quote from Interpretation 1: “under orders from the American government.” Source C reference: “Exposed shocking facts like the war costing $3 million an hour.” Own knowledge: Controversies such as the My Lai Massacre were reported by the media and influenced public opinion and government response. Conclusion (Blue): States a mostly disagreeing stance toward Interpretation 2. Concludes that although poor leadership played a role, media was more influential in turning public opinion. It brought the brutality of the war into people’s homes and accelerated opposition.
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark The USA, 1954-75 answer using a spider diagram
A revision table titled "Planning a question using a table" is shown. It is structured into four rows: Intro, Peel 1, Peel 2, and Conclusion. Each row helps plan an answer to the question: "How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of the media on opposition to the Vietnam War?" Intro: Agrees that the media was the main reason for opposition Peel 1 – Agree – The argument is that unclear goals made people lose trust. Evidence includes: Interpretation 2 quote: “By 1968, the public had given us four years, their money and their sons.” Own knowledge: After the Tet Offensive in 1968, many Americans believed the war was unwinnable. The offensive showed the Vietcong were still strong and made people doubt US generals’ claims that victory was near. Peel 2: This cell is blank but contains a blue arrow graphic pointing downward, suggesting content is meant to follow or be filled in. Conclusion: States: “Overall, I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2. While some Americans were frustrated by poor leadership, the images and reporting shown in the media played a greater role in turning public opinion. It brought the horror of the war into people’s homes and made opposition grow faster.”
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark The USA, 1954-75 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 awarded 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 it can come from your own knowledge

    • E — Explain why this evidence supports your point

      • Your explanation should be focused on the extent to which 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 analysis and evaluation of the interpretations (In)

    • 4 marks are awarded for 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 media on opposition to the Vietnam War?

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

(16)

Sources/interpretations for use with Section B. Source B is a black-and-white 1968 photo by Warren K. Leffler, an American photographer who worked for U.S. News & World Report during the Vietnam War. The photo shows people watching a TV showing Vietnam War footage. Source C is an extract from Vietnam! Vietnam! by Felix Greene, a British journalist, in 1966: "The mounting fury of the richest and most powerful country is today being directed against one of the smallest and poorest countries in the world. The average income of the people of Vietnam is about $50 a year - what the average American earns in a single week. The war today is costing the United States three million dollars an hour. What could not the Vietnamese do for their country with what we spend in one day fighting them! It is costing the United States $400,000 to kill one guerrilla - enough to pay the annual income of 8,000 Vietnamese. The United States can burn and devastate; it can annihilate the Vietnamese; but it cannot conquer them."
Interpretation 1 – From Vietnam, J.D. Clare, published in 1997​. "Americans increasingly believed that the Vietnam War was wrong. Many said that the USA had no right to force its views on a poor nation like Vietnam. However, it was extensive media coverage in the USA that was mostly responsible for encouraging opposition to the war. The war was the first to be covered every night on television. It made people viewing at home realise what was being done by American soldiers under orders from the American government. Photographs and magazines had a similar impact. US Army commanders blamed the media for weakening the war effort." Interpretation 2 – From On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, H. Summers, published in 1982.​ Summers had served as a colonel in the Vietnam War. "Public opinion at home [in the United States] turned when the average citizen perceived that we didn’t know what the hell we were doing; that we had no plan to end the war. And we didn’t know what constituted victory. By 1968 the public had given us four years, their money and their sons. So I don’t blame the American people. I do blame the national leadership, including the military leadership, for not setting clear and definable goals and objectives."

Answer:

I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2 about the impact of television and media on opposition to the Vietnam War. While some Americans did lose trust in their leaders, I think that it was mainly the powerful role of the media that turned public opinion against the war (In).

Interpretation 2 argues that people lost confidence in the war because the government had no clear plan. It says that by 1968, "the public had given us four years, their money and their sons". This shows that many Americans were frustrated by the length of the war and the lack of progress (In). From my own knowledge, I know that the Tet Offensive in 1968 played a big role in changing people's views. The Viet Cong launched surprise attacks on cities across South Vietnam, even reaching the US embassy in Saigon. This made many Americans realise that the war wasn't going as well as the government had claimed. The fact that the US had been told victory was close, only to see such a large enemy attack, made people feel misled by their leaders. Therefore, this shows that Interpretation 2 has some weight when it says that people were unhappy with the war due to the US government (In).

However, I mostly agree with Interpretation 1, which argues that media coverage had the biggest impact on changing public opinion. It says that television made people at home realise what was being done "under orders from the American government". This is more convincing than the other interpretation because it reflects the emotional power of seeing the war first-hand on TV and in magazines (In). Source C supports this by showing how journalists exposed shocking facts, such as the war costing $3 million an hour and $400,000 to kill one guerrilla. This kind of information made Americans question not just whether the war was being won but whether it was even moral or justified. From my own knowledge, the My Lai Massacre in 1968 is a good example of this. When it was reported in the media a year later, many Americans were horrified to learn that US soldiers had killed more than 500 unarmed civilians, including women and children. This forced the government to put Lieutenant Calley, who led the attack, on trial. This shows how powerful media reports were in shaping opposition. Therefore, Interpretation 1 shows the power that the media had over the US public (In).

In conclusion, I mostly disagree with Interpretation 2. While some Americans were frustrated by the lack of a clear plan or leadership, television and media coverage had a greater effect. It brought public attention to poor government decisions, leading to increased pressure for US withdrawal. This makes Interpretation 1 more convincing (In). In addition, the media brought the war into people's homes and exposed the reality of the conflict. For many Americans, this was the turning point that made them actively oppose the war (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:Segregation & Discrimination
    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.