The single most important distinction in A-level history writing is between description and argument. Most students who plateau at grade B or C are describing when they think they are arguing. Understanding the difference — and training yourself to catch it in your own writing — is the highest-leverage thing you can do to improve your marks.
What description looks like
Description tells the examiner what happened. It recounts events, lists causes, summarises what historians argued, or explains what a source says. It is accurate. It demonstrates knowledge. And it does not earn top marks, because it does not answer the question.
Here is a descriptive sentence: Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 after the Nazis won 37% of the vote in the July 1932 election and Hindenburg was persuaded by von Papen to appoint him.
That sentence is accurate. A student who wrote it knows something. But it does not do anything with that knowledge — it does not make a claim, take a position, or connect the fact to the question being asked.
What argument looks like
Argument makes a claim and uses evidence to support it. It takes a position on the question and builds a case. Every sentence is doing analytical work — it is not just reporting what happened but asserting why it mattered, what it demonstrates, or how it supports or complicates a particular interpretation.
Here is an argumentative version of the same material: Hitler’s appointment was less a product of democratic mandate than of elite miscalculation: von Papen believed he could use the Nazi vote without surrendering control, a calculation that collapsed within months. The structural conditions created by the Depression made a far-right breakthrough possible; the specific form it took depended on decisions made by a handful of men who thought they could manage what they could not.
That passage uses the same facts but does something with them. It makes a claim (elite miscalculation, not democratic mandate), distinguishes between structural conditions and contingent decisions, and implicitly positions itself in a debate about how Hitler came to power.
The test: so what?
After every sentence you write, ask: so what? If you can’t answer that question — if the sentence just sits there as a fact — it is probably description. The so what is the analysis: this shows that, this suggests, this demonstrates, this complicates the view that, this is significant because.
You do not need to write the words “this shows that” every time. But the analytical move needs to be there. The examiner needs to see you connecting evidence to argument, not just depositing information.
Why description is the default under pressure
Under exam conditions, students revert to description because it feels safe. You know the facts; writing them down feels like answering the question. It also fills the page, which feels productive. But description is a trap: it generates volume without marks. A four-page essay that describes earns less than a two-page essay that argues.
The fix is to plan your argument before you write, not during. If you know what position you are arguing before you start the essay, you can write each paragraph to advance that position rather than just recording relevant facts. Planning is where argument is built; writing is where it is expressed. See Writing Under Exam Conditions for how to do this in a timed setting.
Common traps
- The historian dump. Naming historians and summarising their views is not AO3 analysis. AO3 requires you to evaluate those views — to say what is convincing or limited about them, and why. A list of what Intentionalists and Functionalists argued is description. A case for why one position is more persuasive given the evidence is argument.
- The narrative paragraph. Paragraphs that tell a story in chronological order — first this happened, then this happened, which led to this — are usually description in disguise. The question is almost never asking you to tell the story. It is asking you to assess a claim about it.
- The balanced but uncommitted paragraph. Presenting both sides of an argument without committing to a position earns marks for knowledge but not for analysis. You need to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion, not just display the options.
← Back to Writing Better History Answers · Essay Structure →
