Command terms and what they ask for
The four command terms in IB History papers (explain, analyse, examine, to what extent), what each asks you to do, and how the rest of a question’s wording shapes the answer.
- IB History
- Exam skills
- SL and HL
Every question on the History papers begins with a command term: the instruction that tells you what kind of thinking the examiner wants to see. The papers of the new course, first examined in May 2028, use only four: explain, analyse, examine and to what extent. Each appears in fixed places, so once you know what each term demands you know in advance what kind of answer every question needs.
The four command terms at a glance
The table sets out where each command term appears and what it asks for. The definitions in the second column are the IB’s standard wording, as printed in the previous History guide (first assessment 2017). The guide for the new course is available only to schools, but the IB keeps its command-term definitions the same across subjects and courses, so these remain the best guide to what the terms mean.
Command term | IB definition | Where it appears | What you must do |
|---|---|---|---|
Explain | “Give a detailed account including reasons or causes.” | Paper 1 question 1 (content of sources A and B); Paper 2 Section B Part A | Give reasons or ways, each developed with specific evidence and linked back to the question with “because”, “so” or “which meant that”. |
Analyse | “Break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure.” | Paper 1 question 2 (context of source C); Paper 2 Section A (concept question) | Split the subject into its parts (elements of a source’s context, facets of a concept) and show how each part works and how the parts connect. |
Examine | “Consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and interrelationships of the issue.” | Paper 1 question 3 (perspectives in all the sources) | Look at the issue through several viewpoints, explain why they differ, and show how they fit together. |
To what extent | “Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.” | Paper 2 Section B Part B (essay); Paper 3, always as “To what extent do you agree …?” | Weigh the claim against the evidence and against other explanations, and reach a clear, supported judgement on how far it holds. |
The four terms make different demands, but they share one feature: none of them can be answered by narrative alone. The diagram of the ladder of command terms shows what each step adds.
Explain: reasons and ways
To explain is to give reasons (why something happened) or ways (how it happened or worked). The difference between describing and explaining is the difference between “what” and “how” or “why”. A description lists events; an explanation shows the link between a cause and its effect.
In the papers, explain is used for the shorter, more focused tasks. Paper 2 Section B Part A asks you to explain how or why something happened, with one example. Paper 1 question 1 asks you to explain how the content of two sources can be used to answer the inquiry question: the reasons, in this case, are the links between what the sources say and the question.
Analyse: breaking something into its parts
To analyse is to take something apart to show how it works. In History the “something” is usually a concept or the context of a source. Analysis is organised by the parts of the thing being analysed, not by the order of events.
Paper 2 Section A asks you to analyse a historical concept, such as how events can have multiple causes, illustrated with one example. The parts of that concept are its facets: different kinds of cause (long-term, short-term, trigger), how causes interact, and why historians weigh them differently. Paper 1 question 2 asks you to analyse how the context of a source shapes its use. The parts there are the elements of context: who produced the source, when, for whom, why, and in what circumstances.
What is being analysed | Its parts (one paragraph or point each) | What links them |
|---|---|---|
The concept of cause and consequence | Long-term and short-term causes; the trigger; necessary and sufficient causes; intended and unintended consequences | How the causes combined to produce the event, and which mattered most |
The concept of significance | Significance at the time; significance for later events; significance for different groups; significance as judged by historians | By whose measure, and over what time, something counts as significant |
The context of a source | Author and position; date and circumstances; audience; purpose; type of source | How each element affects what the source can and cannot show for one question |
Examine: perspectives, assumptions and connections
To examine is to look at an argument or issue in a way that brings out its assumptions and the relationships between its parts. It is the command term of Paper 1 question 3, which asks you to examine how the perspectives in all three sources can be used to answer the inquiry question.
Examining perspectives means more than listing what each source says. It means asking why each source sees the issue as it does (the position, purpose and knowledge of its author), what each one assumes or leaves out, where they agree and disagree, and what the sources show when they are put together. The word “interrelationships” in the definition is the key: the top of the mark scheme rewards answers that connect the sources, not answers that treat them one by one.
To what extent: weighing a claim and reaching a judgement
To what extent asks you to weigh a claim and decide how far it is true. Every essay in the papers uses it. In Paper 2 Section B Part B the question asks “To what extent …?” about a factor, effect or pattern across examples from at least two regions. In Paper 3 every question is worded “To what extent do you agree …?” and gives you an argument (a claim, a statement or a perspective) to evaluate.
The answer is always a matter of degree. “Entirely”, “not at all”, “largely”, “only in part” and “only for some groups” are all possible judgements, as long as the evidence supports them. What is not possible is to avoid a judgement, or to give one in the conclusion that the rest of the essay does not support.
Judgement | Example wording for “The Second World War was the main reason for Britain’s decision to leave India” |
|---|---|
Strong agreement | The war was the decisive reason: it exhausted British power and made a quick transfer of power the only option by 1945–1946. |
Qualified agreement | The war was the main reason for the timing of Britain’s departure, but the decision to leave rested on twenty-five years of nationalist pressure that had already made India ungovernable without consent. |
Qualified disagreement | The war accelerated a departure that the growth of Congress, and Britain’s own reforms since 1919, had already made likely; it explains the date, not the decision. |
Strong disagreement | Nationalist pressure, not the war, decided the outcome: the war only revealed how weak British control already was. |
All four judgements are defensible with evidence. The middle two are usually easier to support, because they allow the essay to give weight to the claim and to its limits. A qualified judgement is still a clear one: it says which way the balance falls and under what conditions.
Reading the rest of the question
The command term tells you what kind of thinking to do; the rest of the question tells you what to think about and within what limits. Underline every word that sets a limit or makes a claim before you plan.
Wording | What it requires |
|---|---|
“the most significant factor”, “the main reason”, “the most important” | A comparison: the named factor must be weighed against at least two others, and you must say which carried most weight. |
“significantly changed”, “transformed”, “was a failure” | A test of the size and nature of an effect: across groups, regions, areas of life and periods, and against what stayed the same. |
“claim”, “statement”, “perspective” (Paper 3) | An argument someone could make. You evaluate it from several angles; you are not asked to prove it right. |
“because of …” (Paper 3 perspective questions) | A causal link to test: did the named cause produce the outcome, or only coincide with it or speed it up? |
“Use one example from your thematic study” | Exactly one example (a conflict, state, movement or innovation), analysed in depth. A second example earns no extra credit and costs time. |
“Use examples from at least two different … in at least two regions” | At least two examples from two different IB regions (Africa and the Middle East; the Americas; Asia and Oceania; Europe). An essay that uses only one region cannot reach the top band. |
Dates in the question | A strict time frame. Evidence from outside it earns credit only as brief background that explains something inside it. |
“in one [country] you have studied” | Choose one country and stay with it; a general survey of several is off-focus. |
Old command terms and how to use old questions
Past papers from the previous course (examined until November 2027) are a large bank of practice questions, but their command terms and formats differ. Discuss, evaluate, examine (in essays) and compare and contrast were common; source questions included “What, according to Source A, …?” and the origin, purpose, value and limitation (OPVL) question. None of these are used on the new papers.
The knowledge needed to answer an old question is often the same, so the questions can be rewritten in the new forms. The table shows how.
Old-style question | Rewritten in the new form |
|---|---|
Discuss the reasons for the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. | “The main reason for the outbreak of war in Korea in 1950 was contrasting views on free elections.” To what extent do you agree with this claim? (Paper 3) |
Evaluate the success of Stalin’s economic policies. | “Stalin’s economic policies achieved their aims.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? (Paper 3); or Part A: Explain how an authoritarian ruler’s economic policy affected people’s lives. (Paper 2) |
Compare and contrast the methods used by two authoritarian leaders to maintain power, each from a different region. | Part B: To what extent was the use of force the most important method of maintaining authoritarian rule? Use examples from at least two different authoritarian states in at least two regions to support your response. (Paper 2) |
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source C. | Analyse how the context of source C influences how it can be used to answer the inquiry question. (Paper 1) |
The Korean War claim in the first row is one of the IB’s own sample questions for the new Paper 3. The others are written in the same style.
One topic, four command terms
The clearest way to see the difference between the command terms is to apply all four to the same content. The worked example uses the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, a common example in the conflict thematic study.
Self-check
- To do:
I can name the four command terms in the History papers and say where each appears.
- To do:
I can explain the difference between describing and explaining, and turn a descriptive sentence into an explanatory one.
- To do:
I can organise an analysis by the parts of a concept or of a source’s context, not by chronology.
- To do:
I can examine perspectives by grouping sources and explaining why their views differ.
- To do:
I can reach a clear, qualified judgement in a “to what extent” question and avoid fence-sitting.
- To do:
I can identify the claim, key words, dates and example rules in a question before I plan.
- To do:
I can rewrite an old-course question (discuss, evaluate, compare and contrast, OPVL) in the new form.
Carry on with History in Augment
With a free account, Augment remembers where you stopped in the notes and which questions you have marked.