Structuring the AS91233 essay
The structure is assessed, not just expected
- The 2025 marking schedule says it directly: a conventional essay structure is required and is considered in awarding the final grade — it can enhance or detract from the communication of the causes and consequences.
- So structure is worth marks in its own right, which makes it the cheapest thing in the standard to get right, because it can be decided before you see the question.
- Every element is named in the printed instructions: introduction, conclusion, detailed supporting evidence, and a concise contextual paragraph.
The seven-part plan that fits 800 words
| Part | Words | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | 80–100 | Names the event, answers the question in one sentence, and signals your two |
| Context | 60–80 | What the event was, in three sentences. No more. |
| First cause / consequence | 200–230 | Claim, evidence, link, weight |
| Second cause / consequence | 200–230 | Claim, evidence, link, weight |
| Comparative judgement | 90–110 | Which mattered more, and on what criterion |
| Conclusion | 60–80 | Returns to the question and states the judgement |
- That totals 690–830 words, which lands inside the 750–800 target with room to breathe.
- The two body paragraphs are more than half the essay. If they are not, something else has swollen — usually the context.
- Write the parts in this order in your plan: the two link sentences first, then everything else. The links are what is being marked; the rest is packaging.
The introduction, in three sentences
- Sentence one names the event, with its date and its boundaries. The [event] of [year] was...
- Sentence two answers the question directly. Two consequences followed from it: [A] and [B]. Do not save your answer for the conclusion — the marker should know your case before the evidence starts.
- Sentence three establishes significance in one clause, using the standard's own measures: how deeply, how many, how long, what remains.
- Do not write "in this essay I will". It spends words and signals nothing the structure will not show.
The contextual paragraph, and how to stop it swelling
- The instruction says concise, and concise is a judgement that fails under exam pressure. Use a count instead: three sentences.
- What goes in: what the event was, when, and who was involved. That is all.
- What does not go in: how it came about (that is your causes section), what followed (your consequences section), or anything you know that is interesting but unasked.
- 2024's report noted responses with contextual detail were stronger — but the same report and 2025's both list narrative as a Not Achieved marker. The resolution is that context should be present and short.
The conclusion that is worth writing
- Return to the question in its own words. If it asked how two consequences resulted, say that they did and how.
- State your comparative judgement, briefly, with its criterion.
- Do not introduce new evidence. A fact appearing for the first time in a conclusion reads as something you forgot.
- Do not summarise what you just wrote. The marker read it four hundred words ago.
- Two or three sentences. It is the last thing you write and the first thing to shorten if time is gone.
Exam-room order of operations
- Read the question twice and write CAUSES or CONSEQUENCES at the top of the planning page. The commonest Not Achieved cause is answering in the wrong direction.
- Write your event in the box. One sentence, with boundaries.
- On the planning page, write your two link sentences. Not a plan of the essay — the two sentences that say how each connects to the event. If you cannot write them, change your two now, while it is still cheap.
- List three or four evidence items under each.
- Then write, straight through. The plan is not marked and re-planning is time taken from the two paragraphs that carry the grade.
- Leave three minutes. Check: two items, both the type asked for, both linked explicitly, and a comparative judgement present.
Worked Example
Worked example
The question is: How did TWO different consequences result from your chosen historical event?
Plan the whole essay on the planning page in under five minutes.
Answer:
Step 1 — direction, at the top of the page. CONSEQUENCES. Not causes. Everything I write gets checked against that word.
Step 2 — the event, in the box, with boundaries. One sentence with a date, a place and the people involved. Not a topic — an event.
Step 3 — the two link sentences, written out in full. This is the only part of the plan that is worth writing as prose.
Step 4 — check they are different. Link 1 is social, immediate, and reaches those directly involved. Link 2 is political, longer-term, and reaches everyone in the measure's scope. Three axes apart. Good.
Step 5 — check dependency on each. Link 1: founded explicitly in response, and said so. Link 2: the drafting committee cited the event, and the proposal had failed twice before. Both are documented, not inferred.
Step 6 — evidence, three or four items each, as a list. Names, dates, figures, one contemporary statement per consequence. Bullet points, not sentences — the plan is not marked.
Step 7 — the comparative judgement, in note form. Duration → measure wins (decades vs. months). Depth → organisation wins (transformed those involved). Both, with criteria named.
Step 8 — start writing. Introduction, three sentences of context, then the two paragraphs, comparative judgement, conclusion. No further planning.