Educerie · IB Diploma · History
Paper 1 — Source analysis
Paper 1 is the most learnable exam in the Diploma. The four questions never change, the marks never change, and the skills are mechanical once you have them. This page is the method.
The 60 minutes
Spend the first 5 minutes reading, not writing. Read the question stem — it tells you the topic and frames everything — then all four sources, noting for each: who wrote it, when, and why.
Then: 5 minutes on Q1a and 1b · 10 on Q2 · 15 on Q3 · 25 on Q4.
The commonest failure in this paper is not ignorance. It is spending twenty minutes polishing a 6-mark comparison and leaving twelve for a 9-mark essay.
Question 1a — what does the source say? (3 marks)
Three separate points, drawn directly from the source, in your own words. That is the whole task. No analysis, no evaluation, no context.
Write them as three short sentences or three bullets, so the marker can count them. Copying a sentence verbatim risks scoring nothing; paraphrase.
Question 1b — the message of the visual source (2 marks)
Usually a cartoon, photograph or poster. Two marks, so two points.
Do not describe what is in the picture — that scores nothing. Say what the creator is arguing. Work from the symbols: who is drawn large or small, who is threatening or helpless, what the labels say, what is exaggerated. Then state the message as a claim: "The cartoonist is arguing that the League of Nations was powerless to restrain Japanese aggression."
Question 2 — value and limitations (4 marks)
The most mechanical question on the paper, and the one most often thrown away.
You are given a source and asked for its value and limitations for historians studying X, with reference to its origin, purpose and content. Work through all three, and for each give both a value and a limitation.
| Ask | Then say | |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Who produced it, when, where, in what role? | An eyewitness has direct knowledge, but may have been positioned to see only part. A later account has hindsight and access to more evidence, but is further from the event. |
| Purpose | Why was it produced, and for whom? | A public speech reveals what a leader wanted an audience to believe — valuable for propaganda, limited for private intention. A private diary may be more candid, but is one person's view and may be self-justifying. |
| Content | What does it actually contain — detail, tone, omission? | Specific figures and names give usable evidence; emotive language reveals attitude but not fact; and what is left out is itself evidence. |
Two rules that decide the mark.
First, always finish the sentence "valuable for finding out what?" A source is never valuable in general. A propaganda poster is a poor guide to events and an excellent guide to what a government wanted believed.
Second, never write "it is biased" as a limitation on its own. Every source has a perspective; that is why sources exist. The analytical statement is whose perspective, why they held it, and what that makes the source good and bad for.
Question 3 — compare and contrast (6 marks)
Two sources, and you need both similarities and differences, roughly balanced.
Write it linked. Every sentence should mention both sources:
Both Source B and Source D agree that the intervention was decisive, though Source B attributes this to military strength whereas Source D emphasises the collapse of the opposing coalition.
Two separate paragraphs — one summarising Source B, one summarising Source D — is the single most common structural error in this paper, and it caps the answer at about half marks however good the content.
Aim for roughly three linked comparisons and three linked contrasts. You are comparing what the sources say, not evaluating whether they are right — that belongs in Question 2 and Question 4.
Question 4 — the essay (9 marks)
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate a claim.
The two failure modes, both fatal:
- Sources only. A summary of the four sources, however accurate, cannot reach the top bands.
- Own knowledge only. A good essay that never cites a source cannot either.
The structure that works:
- Introduction — address the claim directly and state your line of argument. Do not narrate background.
- Three or four body paragraphs, each making one argument, each supported by at least one source cited by letter and at least one piece of your own knowledge — a date, a name, a figure, a treaty, an event the sources do not mention.
- Counter-argument. Deal with the strongest case against your line, using the sources that support it. An essay that only marshals evidence for one side is not an evaluation.
- Conclusion — answer the question asked, with a judgement. If the question says to what extent, give a degree: "to a significant extent, though primarily in the early period".
Cite sources explicitly by letter. "As Source C shows…" — markers are looking for the letters, and an implicit reference often is not credited.
Own knowledge means specific knowledge. "There was economic hardship" is not own knowledge. "Unemployment in Germany reached roughly six million by early 1932" is.
What actually loses marks in this paper
- Running out of time on Question 4, which is worth more than 1 to 3 combined.
- Describing a cartoon in 1b instead of stating its message.
- Writing "the source is biased" as a limitation with nothing further.
- Evaluating a source without saying what it is valuable for.
- Answering Question 3 as two separate summaries rather than a linked comparison.
- Giving only similarities, or only differences, in Question 3.
- Writing Question 4 from the sources alone, or from own knowledge alone.
- Failing to cite sources by letter.
- Ending Question 4 without a judgement, or answering to what extent with a yes or a no.
Educerie · written from the published IB Diploma Programme structure for History Paper 1, first assessment 2017. Original text. Last reviewed 5 September 2026.