Examiners mark thousands of essays and encounter the same errors repeatedly. The mistakes listed here are not occasional slip-ups — they are the structural habits that consistently push answers below the top band. Recognising them in your own writing is the first step to eliminating them.
1. The narrative paragraph
A paragraph that tells the story in chronological order — first this happened, then this happened, which led to… — is description. History essays at A-level are almost never asking you to tell the story; they are asking you to assess a claim about it. A narrative paragraph demonstrates that you know what happened; it does not demonstrate that you can analyse why it happened or evaluate what it reveals.
The fix: Open every paragraph with an analytical claim (a sentence that takes a position on the question), then use narrative material as evidence in support of that claim. The story is the evidence, not the argument.
2. The historian dump
Listing what historians have argued — Intentionalists like Dawidowicz argue X; Functionalists like Broszat argue Y; post-revisionists like Kershaw argue Z — and moving on without evaluating any of these positions earns no AO3 marks. The examiner wants to see you assess the arguments, not catalogue them.
The fix: For each interpretation you mention, assess it. What does it explain convincingly? What is its weakness? What evidence supports or undermines it? See How to Evaluate a Historian’s Argument.
3. The empty balance
An essay structured as on the one hand… on the other hand… therefore it is difficult to say… presents information in pairs without reaching a judgement. Balance without verdict is not analysis — it is evasion. Examiners reward students who weigh the evidence and commit to a conclusion, even a qualified one.
The fix: After presenting both sides of an argument, weigh them. Which position is supported by stronger evidence? Which explains more? Why? Your conclusion should deliver a definite, qualified answer — not declare the question unanswerable.
4. The descriptive introduction
An introduction that provides historical background, defines terms at length, or announces what the essay will cover without actually arguing anything signals to the examiner that the student has not formulated an argument before writing. The first paragraph should state your position — your answer to the question — not warm up to it.
The fix: Your introduction should be readable as a summary of your argument. If you removed the body of your essay and just read the introduction and conclusion, a stranger should be able to tell what your argument was. See Introductions and Conclusions.
5. The summary conclusion
A conclusion that simply restates the paragraph topics — in conclusion, I have shown that the Depression, structural weaknesses, and elite decisions all contributed… — is a list, not a judgement. The examiner has just read the essay. They do not need a recap. They need to see you synthesise the argument and deliver a verdict.
The fix: Your conclusion should answer the question directly and explain which factor or interpretation was most significant, and why. It should feel like the resolution of an argument, not a table of contents for what you just wrote.
6. Vague evidence
Phrases like ‘there was mass unemployment’, ‘many people opposed the regime’, ‘the economy collapsed’ gesture at evidence without providing it. Vague evidence is less persuasive and signals weaker knowledge than specific evidence.
The fix: Whenever possible, name specific figures, dates, events, or individuals. ‘Unemployment reached 6 million by early 1932’ is more persuasive than ‘there was mass unemployment’. Specificity demonstrates genuine knowledge and strengthens your argument. See Using Evidence.
7. Answering a different question
Writing a good essay about the topic rather than the question set. A question about ‘the role of propaganda in consolidating Nazi power’ is not an invitation to write everything you know about how the Nazis consolidated power. Students who misread the question spend 45 minutes demonstrating knowledge that the examiner cannot reward because it is not relevant to the specific claim being assessed.
The fix: Read the question carefully before planning. Identify the specific claim or focus word. Write one sentence that accurately describes what the question is asking. Check every paragraph against that sentence. See How to Read a Question.
