Revision NotesExam QuestionsFlashcardsPast Papers
GCSEHistoryEdexcelModern Depth Study (Paper 3)Revision NotesWeimar & Nazi Germany, 1918–39Exam Questions: Weimar & Nazi Germany, 1918–39The 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

Natasha Smith

Written by: Natasha Smith

Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett

Updated on

Edexcel History: Modern Depth Study (Paper 3)Edexcel History

Summary of Question 3 (d)

  • Question 3 (d) requires you to evaluate how far you agree with Interpretation 2's view on the topic

  • Use Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 2 to create a balanced argument and an overall judgement

  • 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 about German recovery from 1924-1929, requiring analysis of Interpretation 2 and historical context. Spelling and grammar will be assessed. 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 can not 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 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 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

  • 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 'German recovery in the years 1924-29'

  • 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

GCSE History revision diagram answering the 16-mark interpretations question: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about Germany recovery in the years 1924–29?” The top of the image shows the question, followed by a spider diagram planning tool. On the left, evidence supports Interpretation 2: Source C quotes Stresemann warning of collapse if US loans are withdrawn. The USA loaned Germany $25 billion between 1924–30. Interpretation 2 argues Germany’s recovery was built on “quicksand foundations”. Peel 1: “I agree with the question about Interpretation 2.” On the right, evidence supports Interpretation 1: Source B describes post-1919 German optimism. The Nazi Party only got 3% of the vote in 1928, showing general satisfaction. Interpretation 1 claims Germany was stable by 1929. Peel 2: “Interpretation 1.” Below the spider diagram is a second example question: “The work of the police has changed significantly in the years 1829–present.” The remainder of the image develops a structured answer to the main Germany question: Introduction: The student agrees with Interpretation 2 — Germany’s recovery was fragile. Opinion: “Overall, I agree with Interpretation 2.” The recovery relied heavily on the USA — if the US hadn’t had the Wall Street Crash, Weimar Germany may not have collapsed. Conclusion: Interpretation 2 is more convincing because it highlights Germany’s reliance on the USA. Interpretation 1 captures the sense of optimism in 1929, but overlooks that the stability was dependent on another country, meaning Germany lacked control over its future.
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark Weimar and Nazi Germany answer using a spider diagram
GCSE History planning table for a 16-mark interpretations question: “How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about Germany recovery in the years 1924–29?” The layout is a table with four rows labelled: Introduction: “I agree with Interpretation 2. German recovery was built on fragile foundations.” Peel 1: Gives evidence supporting Interpretation 2: It describes Germany’s recovery as built on “quicksand foundations.” Notes that the USA loaned $25 billion to Germany from 1924–30. Source C quote from Stresemann: “If the short-term loans are called in by America, a large section of our economy would collapse.” Peel 2: Gives some balance by acknowledging the points behind Interpretation 1: Germany was stable, with most people happy. The Nazi Party only won 3% of the vote in 1928. Source B quote: “in a way we would never have thought possible.” Conclusion: The student ultimately agrees with Interpretation 2. They argue: Interpretation 2 is stronger because it shows how reliant Germany was on the USA. However, it does not account for what might’ve happened if the USA hadn't experienced the Wall Street Crash. Interpretation 1 reflects the optimism felt in Germany, but overlooks that Germany’s stability depended on another country’s economic success — making it fragile and not in Germany’s control.
An illustration showing how to plan a 16-mark Weimar and Nazi Germany 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

    • You should use 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 be focused on to what extent 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 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 German recovery in the years 1924-29?

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

(16)

Two contrasting interpretations from different authors about the Weimar Republic, noting economic conditions and political stability from 1924 to 1929.
Text from two historical sources about Germany's post-Versailles recovery. Source B: 1930 German journalist notes surprising progress. Source C: 1929 Gustav Stresemann speech warning economic fragility.

Answer

I mostly agree with Interpretation 2 that Germany's recovery from 1924 to 1929 was fragile, meaning it had not truly recovered from the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles (In).

Interpretation 2 states that Germany's recovery was built on 'quicksand foundations' which were 'dependant upon high-interest American loans'. The Dawes and Young Plans reduced reparations but also gave a significant amount of money to rebuild Germany's industry. Altogether, the USA gave $25 billion to German industry from 1924-30 (In). As shown in Source C, Stresemann himself acknowledged the risk that he was taking by tying Germany's economic success to the USA. The source states that 'If the short-term loans are called in by America, a large section of our economy would collapse.' I mainly agree with Interpretation 2 as tying Germany's economy to the USA's was a risk that Stresemann knew the implications for. Instead of focusing on Germany developing an independent, stable economy, Stresemann relied on US loans to pay reparations and fund German industry. Therefore, this shows that Germany hadn't properly recovered. Its economy was just being supported by foreign loans (In).

Interpretation 1 claims that Germany was financially and politically stable in 1929. The interpretation states that 'the Weimar Republic was much stronger than it had been just after the war' (In). There is some truth to this statement. On the surface, Weimar Germany looked like it had recovered. The support for extreme parties had dropped in this period. For example, the Nazi Party only won 3% of the votes in 1928. This shows that the majority of people were happy with the Weimar Republic and trusted Stresemann's government. Source C also shows this support and optimism for Weimar Germany's recovery. It states that Germany had recovered 'in a way we would never have thought possible' and comments on the speed at which this took place. Therefore, Interpretation 1 uses some convincing evidence to argue that Weimar Germany had recovered by 1929. However, it is not as convincing as Interpretation 2 because it must be acknowledged that, if Weimar Germany was truly stable and recovered, it would have been able to survive the collapse of the USA's economy after the Wall Street Crash (In).

Overall, I mostly agree with Interpretation 2 about how far Germany had recovered in 1924-1929. I agree with Interpretation 2 as it emphasises Germany's reliance on US loans to stabilise the government and society. However, this interpretation does not consider that, if the US did not experience the Wall Street Crash, Weimar Germany would not have collapsed. It was a gamble that unfortunately did not pay off for Germany (In). Additionally, Interpretation 1 highlights the feeling that people had in 1929 that Germany had recovered. People generally felt happy in Weimar Germany and optimistic for its future. However, the main reason why I agree with Interpretation 2 is that German stability was based on the success of another country rather than Germany's independent success. This made it unstable as Germany was not in charge of its own destiny (In).

You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week

Unlock more, it's free!

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

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

    Test yourself
    Previous:Comparing Interpretations QuestionsNext:The Origins of the Weimar Republic, 1919
    Author
    Reviewer
    Natasha Smith

    Author: Natasha Smith

    Expertise: History Content Creator

    After graduating with a degree in history, Natasha gained her PGCE at Keele University. With more than 10 years of teaching experience, Natasha taught history at both GCSE and A Level. Natasha's specialism is modern world history. As an educator, Natasha channels this passion into her work, aiming to instil in students the same love for history that has fuelled her own curiosity.

    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.