Topics

Structuring the essay

Covers AS91438

What the paper physically requires

Page 2 carries the instructions, the essay question, and a box in which you write your chosen historical event.
Page 3 is a PLANNING page and is not marked. Nothing written there counts, and nothing written there is penalised.
The essay begins on page 4, under a printed reminder: aim for a concise essay of no more than 5–6 pages; the quality of your writing is more important than the length.
The 2026 specification puts a number on it: 800–900 words.
The instruction line says "concise and well argued." Both words are assessed — the 2025 schedule repeats "This should be a concise response" under Merit and Excellence.

What "concise" actually means here

The 2024 report defines it, and not as a word count: "A concise response was not necessarily about answering the question in 900 words, but rather focused on two consequences and avoided redundancy, repetition, and irrelevance in the argument."
So conciseness is a property of the argument, not the length. A 900-word essay with a third consequence in it is not concise. An 850-word essay that stays on two is.
The report is explicit that a third item costs you: writing about a third "often diluted the response, or limited the time available to discuss the prioritisation of the consequences, which is critical for Merit or above."
Three consequences is not generosity. It is trading the Merit criterion for extra Achieved material.

A structure that fits 800–900 words

Introduction — roughly 100 words.
- Name the event and date it.
- Name the two causes or consequences you will analyse.
- State your position on which was more important. The 2024 report describes Excellence candidates doing this here and sustaining it throughout.
Context — roughly 100 words, one paragraph.
- Explain why the event was possible, not what else happened. Context that establishes the pressure behind your event earns its space; context that surveys the period does not.
- The 2024 report notes a "significant number of candidates provided only cursory discussion of the event or omitted contextual background altogether" — so this paragraph is required, but it is one paragraph.
Body paragraph one — roughly 250 words.
- Topic sentence that names the item and its mechanism, not just its label.
- The explanation of how it links to the event.
- Specific evidence — dates, figures, names, legislation.
- A closing sentence measuring it against your criterion.
Body paragraph two — roughly 250 words, same shape.
Comparison — roughly 120 words.
- Name your criterion. Apply it to both. Concede what the losing item has going for it, and say why it still loses.
Conclusion — roughly 80 words.
- Synthesise, do not summarise. The 2024 report describes Excellence candidates using the conclusion "to synthesise ideas, make comparisons, or explain why the chosen consequences were particularly significant."

Topic sentences do more work here than anywhere else

The 2024 report names them at Merit: candidates "used topic sentences to introduce or categorise the two consequences being argued."
A topic sentence that names only the label is doing one job. The second consequence was political.
A topic sentence that names the mechanism is doing four. Because the Act created an enforceable right, individuals could for the first time take a case to court — and this is the consequence whose effects proved hardest to reverse.
- It names the consequence.
- It states the mechanism, which is the link.
- It signals the evidence that will follow.
- It plants the comparison criterion — reversibility — so the later comparison paragraph is not arriving from nowhere.
If a topic sentence needs a subordinate clause to explain which part of the event you mean, the event was too broad.

Historiography: what this standard actually says

The 2024 report states plainly that historiography is "not a requirement for Excellence" in AS91438, and warns that candidates should incorporate it "to support their argument, rather than substituting it for their own analysis."
This is the opposite of AS91439, where the 2025 report lists "attempted to use historiography" under Achieved.
So the advice is standard-specific. Do not carry a rule from one external into the other.
Where historians' views do help here, it is as evidence that your comparison is genuinely contested — which supports the complexity requirement. That is one route to complexity, not the route.

Tips and Tricks

Tips and tricks

Use the planning page for the criterion, not for a content dump. Nothing on page 3 is marked, so the only thing worth writing there is what you will otherwise forget under pressure: your two items, your criterion, and your one-sentence position. Five minutes.

Count your paragraphs, not your words. Six paragraphs at 800–900 words is about 140 words each on average — roughly a third of a page in normal handwriting. If you are on paragraph two at the bottom of page 4, you are writing too long and will run out before the comparison.

Never introduce your judgement for the first time in the conclusion. By then you have neither the space nor the time to justify it, and an unjustified judgement is Achieved-level assertion no matter how confidently it is written.

If you finish early, do not add a third consequence. Go back and add a criterion sentence to the end of each body paragraph. That is worth more than any amount of new material.

Worked Example

Worked example

A candidate is 15 minutes from the end of the AS91438 exam. They have written: an introduction, a context paragraph, and two full body paragraphs on two consequences. Both body paragraphs are well evidenced. Neither mentions the other. There is no comparison anywhere in the script, and the introduction does not state a position.

They have room for roughly 200 more words. What should they write, and in what order?

Answer:

Step 1 — diagnose the grade the script currently supports.

Two consequences, each linked to the event, each with specific evidence. The 2025 schedule's Achieved descriptor is met and its Merit descriptor is not, because Merit requires "assesses and prioritises" and nothing in the script assesses anything. The script is a solid Achieved.

Step 2 — identify the cheapest available upgrade.

The missing element is the comparison. It requires no new content — both consequences are already on the page with their evidence. What is missing is a criterion and its application.

Step 3 — decide the order, because 200 words will not do everything.

Write the comparison paragraph first, not the conclusion. A conclusion that summarises adds nothing the schedule rewards; a comparison paragraph moves the script a full grade. If time then runs out mid-conclusion, the marker has still seen the prioritisation.

Step 4 — draft it, using only what is already in the script.

That is about 100 words and contains all three required elements: a named criterion (reversibility), both items measured against it, and a concession that is answered rather than left hanging.

Step 5 — spend the remaining 100 words on a conclusion that synthesises.

Not a summary. One sentence restating the judgement, and two explaining what the pair together shows about the event — which is what the 2024 report describes Excellence candidates doing with their conclusions.

Step 6 — what NOT to do with the time.

Do not add a third consequence. The 2024 report says a third diluted responses and consumed the time needed for prioritisation — the exact trade this candidate cannot afford.
Do not go back and add more evidence to the body paragraphs. The evidence row is already at Merit level; the analysis row is what is capping the grade, and only the comparison lifts it.
Do not add historiography. It is explicitly not required for Excellence in this standard, and 200 words spent on a historian's view instead of the comparison would leave the script on Achieved.

Write the comparison paragraph first: about 100 words, no new content, and it moves a completed Achieved script to Merit. The conclusion comes second, and a third consequence not at all.