Educerie · IB Diploma · History
Paper 1 — Source analysis practice · mark scheme
Questions 1 and 2 are point-marked. Questions 3 and 4 are banded, as in the real paper.
1Comprehension and message — 5 marks
(a) [3] — one mark for each valid point, in the candidate's own words:
| The promise made to the Ethiopian people by the fifty-two member nations | 1 |
|---|---|
| The equality of nations — that no nation stands higher than another | 1 |
| International morality itself, rather than merely a clause of the Covenant | 1 |
| The League's reputation before history / the judgement of posterity | 1 |
Award to a maximum of 3. Verbatim copying is not credited — the point must be paraphrased. No marks for evaluation, context or comment on reliability; those are not asked for here.
(b) [2]
| The cartoonist argues that collective security has been destroyed or rendered worthless by Italian aggression — Italy treats it with open contempt | 1 |
|---|---|
| Britain and France are shown deliberately looking away, so the cartoonist blames not only Italy but the wilful inaction of the League's leading members | 1 |
Description scores nothing. "A man is lying on the ground and a soldier stands on him" is not a message. The second mark requires the point about Britain and France; an answer blaming only Italy misses half the cartoon.
2Value and limitations of Source B — 4 marks
Award up to 4, requiring origin, purpose and content to be addressed and both value and limitation to appear.
| Origin — a British Foreign Office official writing in October 1935, contemporaneous and internal. Value: direct access to the reasoning of the government whose decision was pivotal. Limitation: one official's view, not necessarily government policy, and confined to the British perspective. | 1 |
|---|---|
| Purpose — a private memorandum, not intended for publication. Value: likely to be more candid than a public statement, disclosing calculations a government would not admit publicly. Limitation: written to advise on a decision, so it argues a case rather than describing events neutrally. | 1 |
| Content — names the specific measures at issue (Suez Canal closure, oil embargo) and the specific fears (naval inadequacy, driving Rome toward Berlin). Value: testable, concrete evidence of the strategic reasoning. | 1 |
| Content limitation — it addresses only British strategic calculation and says nothing of French policy, domestic opinion or the situation in Abyssinia itself; the admission that the case is "just" is not developed. | 1 |
"The source is biased" earns nothing. A source's perspective is what makes it evidence. Cap at 2 where the candidate does not say what the source is valuable for. Cap at 3 where any one of origin, purpose or content is omitted.
3Compare and contrast Sources B and D — 6 marks
| Band | Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| 5–6 | Both similarities and differences, roughly balanced, discussed as a linked running comparison with explicit reference to both sources throughout | 5–6 |
| 3–4 | Both similarities and differences present but unbalanced, or the linkage is intermittent | 3–4 |
| 1–2 | The two sources treated separately, with comparison implied rather than made; or only similarities, or only differences | 1–2 |
| 0 | Nothing creditable | 0 |
Indicative similarities — both identify the absence of oil sanctions and the open Suez Canal as the decisive omissions; both treat the limitation as a choice rather than an incapacity; both imply the outcome served nobody, B fearing Italy is driven toward Berlin, D noting Mussolini was made an enemy without being defeated.
Indicative differences — B is a contemporary, internal justification offering strategic reasons (naval weakness, risk of war) whereas D is a retrospective judgement offering none of that mitigation; B accepts the Abyssinian case is just but argues its defence is imprudent, whereas D treats the calculation as culpable; D can assess consequences with hindsight, which B in October 1935 cannot.
Two separate paragraphs, one per source, cannot exceed band 1–2, however accurate the content.
4Evaluation using sources and own knowledge — 5 marks
| Band | Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Clear argument addressing the claim directly; at least two sources cited by letter and integrated as evidence; specific own knowledge beyond the sources; a counter-argument considered; a conclusion giving a judgement | 5 |
| 4 | Argument present with sources and own knowledge both used, but the counter-argument or the judgement is underdeveloped | 4 |
| 3 | Sources and own knowledge both present but poorly integrated, or one is thin | 3 |
| 2 | Sources only, or own knowledge only, however competent | 2 |
| 1 | Fragmentary relevant material, largely narrative | 1 |
| 0 | Nothing creditable | 0 |
Indicative content — for the claim (members' choices): Source B shows Britain weighing strategic prudence over the Covenant; Source D states the League "did not fail for want of a mechanism"; Source C blames Britain and France directly; own knowledge might include the Hoare–Laval Pact of December 1935, the exclusion of oil from the sanctions list, and Italy's withdrawal from the League in 1937. Against the claim (structural weakness): the League had no standing army and depended entirely on member states to act, so member choice and structural weakness are not separable; the absence of the United States and the earlier failure over Manchuria in 1931–33 suggest a systemic rather than a situational problem.
A conclusion is required. An answer that presents both sides and stops cannot exceed band 3. A judgement recognising that the two explanations are interdependent — that a structure depending on voluntary enforcement fails precisely when members decline to enforce — is a strong band 5.
Mark distribution
| Split | Allocation |
|---|---|
| By skill | Comprehension 3 · Visual message 2 · Source evaluation 4 · Comparison 6 · Argument with own knowledge 5 |
| By objective | AO1 knowledge 3 · AO2 application and analysis 9 · AO3 synthesis and evaluation 6 · AO4 skills 2 |
| By command term | Compare and contrast 6 · Evaluate 5 · Analyse 4 · (comprehension) 3 · (message) 2 |
Total: 20 marks
Educerie · original mark scheme for original questions, written against the published IB Diploma Programme structure for History Paper 1, first assessment 2017. Band descriptors follow the published structure of IB history marking, which is a convention rather than protected expression. Last reviewed 5 September 2026.