Paper 2 Section B: short responses and essays

How to answer Paper 2 Section B: the four-mark short response (Part A) and the comparative essay with examples from two regions (Part B), with model answers, an essay plan and the rules on examples.

IB History
Exam skills
SL and HL

13 min readLast reviewed 16 Oct 2026

Section B of Paper 2 is where your thematic study is tested directly. Each thematic study has two questions on the paper; you choose one and answer both of its parts. Part A is a short response asking you to explain something with one example. Part B is an essay asking “To what extent …?”, which must use examples from at least two different cases in at least two regions of the world.

How a Section B question is built

The IB’s published sample for the conflict thematic study shows the shape of every Section B question.

Part A: Explain how conflict can affect the experience of a marginalized group. Use one example from your thematic study in your response.
Part B: To what extent has the mobilization of resources been the most important factor in determining the outcome of conflict? Use examples from at least two different conflicts in at least two regions to support your response.

IB, Diploma Programme Subject Brief: History, first assessment 2028 (2025), sample Paper 2 questions. Teachers working from the guide report that Part A is worth [4] and Part B [15]. The two parts of the sample come from different guiding questions: the experiences of marginalised groups belong to “How did conflict affect people’s lives?”, and the mobilisation of resources to “What determined the outcome of the conflict?”. This is why you need to prepare the whole thematic study, not one or two favourite topics.

Part A: the short response

Part A uses the command term explain: give reasons or ways, with each one linked to the question. The bands reported by teachers working from the guide step up from identifying a relevant example (1 mark), to describing it (2), to partially explaining it (3), to explaining it effectively (4). The difference between 2 and 4 is not more detail; it is the causal links that turn detail into explanation.

Marks	What the answer does (reconstructed from reported markbands)
4	Effectively explains a relevant example: clear reasons or ways, each developed with specific evidence and linked to the question
3	Partially explains a relevant example: some explanation, but undeveloped or only one clear point
2	Describes a relevant example: accurate detail, little explanation of how or why
1	Identifies a relevant example, with little more
0	Does not reach the standard above

Part A: Explain how conflict can affect the experience of a marginalized group. Use one example from your thematic study in your response. [4]

Show the model answer and comments

Model answer. The war between the United States and Japan from December 1941 changed the lives of Japanese Americans in two main ways.

First, the conflict turned an existing minority into suspected enemies, which led to their removal from their homes. After Pearl Harbor, fear of sabotage combined with long-standing anti-Asian racism on the west coast, and in February 1942 President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which allowed the army to exclude people from military areas. As a result, about 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of them US citizens, were forced to sell homes and businesses at a fraction of their value and were held in ten camps, some for more than three years, even though a federal commission found in 1983 no documented acts of espionage or sabotage by Japanese Americans.

Second, the war gave some Japanese Americans a way to claim the citizenship they were denied. About 33,000 served in the US forces, and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, recruited partly from the camps, became one of the most decorated units of its size in the army. Service did not end the incarceration, but it became the basis of later claims for redress, which led to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and its formal apology.

Comments. One example; two distinct ways; specific evidence (dates, numbers, the order, the regiment, the 1988 Act); and explicit causal links (“which led to”, “as a result”, “became the basis of”). No introduction or conclusion is needed.

Part B: the rules on examples

Part B always asks for “examples from at least two different [conflicts / authoritarian states / popular movements / innovations] in at least two regions”. The regions are the four the IB uses throughout the course: Africa and the Middle East, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, and Europe. Two well-chosen examples from two regions are enough; a third can strengthen an argument but is not needed.

Rule	What it means in practice
Two different cases	Two separate conflicts, states, movements or innovations. The Second World War in Europe and in the Pacific is one war, so it cannot supply both examples; the Cold War as a whole is not “a conflict” in the military sense, though its proxy wars, such as Korea or Vietnam, are.
Two regions	The cases must come from different IB regions. Where a conflict spans regions, say in the introduction which region your evidence comes from.
Inside the dates	Conflict and innovation examples from 750 onwards; authoritarian rule and popular movements from 1750 onwards. Contemporary examples are allowed.
Relevant to the line of inquiry	A case chosen for one guiding question (why a conflict began) must still have evidence on the question asked (how it ended or who it affected).

Preparing two or three strong cases in depth, from different regions, works better than knowing six cases thinly. Your teacher chooses the cases studied in class; for each one, build a revision grid with a row for every line of inquiry in the thematic study, so that you have evidence on any question that could be set.

Part B: planning and structure

Part B uses to what extent: you weigh a claim and reach a judgement. The reconstructed markbands (official wording not public) reward an essay that is consistently analytical and focused on the question, uses relevant, specific examples from at least two regions, makes well-developed connections between the examples, and reaches a reasoned judgement consistent with the analysis.

Six boxes in a column: introduction (define terms, name examples and regions, thesis); argument 1 for the claim using both examples, compared; argument 2 for the claim using both examples; other factor or counter-argument using both examples, weighed; second other factor weighed against the claim;… — An integrated structure for a Part B essay. Green paragraphs support the claim, orange ones challenge it or weigh other factors. Every body paragraph uses both examples, which is what produces the comparisons that the top band rewards.

The integrated structure in the diagram is the most reliable way to produce those connections. An alternative is to group all the arguments for the claim and then all the arguments against it, but in both cases each paragraph should use both examples. The structure to avoid is two essays placed one after the other, one per example, with a comparison only in the conclusion.

Part of the essay	Length (about)	What it does
Introduction	100 words	Defines the key term of the question; names the examples and their regions; states a qualified thesis
Body paragraphs (4–5)	150–200 words each	One argument per paragraph; evidence from both examples; an explicit comparison; a sentence linking back to the claim
Conclusion	80–100 words	A judgement on “to what extent”, consistent with the body, saying under what conditions the claim holds

Worked example: an essay plan with model paragraphs

Part B: To what extent has the mobilization of resources been the most important factor in determining the outcome of conflict? Use examples from at least two different conflicts in at least two regions to support your response. [15]

Show the model answer and comments

Unpacking the question. The claim is that resources (people, money, industry, food, transport, organised for war) decided outcomes more than leadership, strategy and tactics, or technology. “Most important” requires a comparison with those factors. The examples chosen: the First World War, 1914–1918 (Europe); the war in Asia and the Pacific, 1937–1945 (Asia and Oceania); and, as a test case, the Algerian War, 1954–1962 (Africa and the Middle East).

Thesis. Resources were the most important factor in long wars between industrial states, but only when they were mobilised and when the will to use them lasted; where political will failed, as in Algeria, the stronger side lost.

Model introduction. The mobilisation of resources is the organisation of a society’s population, wealth, industry and food for war. In the First World War in Europe and the war in Asia and the Pacific from 1937 to 1945, the side that mobilised more resources won after a long war of attrition, which supports the claim. Yet the Algerian War shows that material superiority could fail when the political will to use it collapsed. Resources were therefore the most important factor in wars between industrial states that lasted for years, but they decided outcomes only when they were mobilised effectively and backed by the will to go on fighting.

Paragraph plan.

1. Resources and attrition (for). First World War: the Allies had about 5.2 times the population and 2.9 times the output of the Central Powers in 1914 (Broadberry and Harrison); the British blockade and the “turnip winter” of 1916–1917; US entry in April 1917. Pacific: US output more than four times Japan’s in 1940 (Maddison-based estimates); Japan could not replace the four carriers lost at Midway (June 1942). Comparison: both were won by the side that could replace its losses.
2. Mobilisation, not possession (qualifies). Germany mobilised its economy efficiently (the Hindenburg Programme of 1916) and held out for four years against far larger resources; China’s resistance tied down much of Japan’s army. Resources mattered through organisation and over time.
3. Strategy and leadership (other factors). Germany’s gamble on unrestricted submarine warfare (February 1917) brought the United States into the war; US island-hopping and the submarine campaign cut Japan off from Southeast Asian oil. Strategy decided how resources were used, and in both cases poor strategic choices by the weaker side hastened its defeat.
4. Technology (other factor). Machine guns and artillery made 1914–1917 a war of attrition, which favoured the side with more resources; carriers, codebreaking and the atomic bombs of August 1945 were themselves products of US industrial power. Technology mostly worked through resources.
5. Political will (counter-argument). Algeria: France deployed more than 400,000 troops by 1956–1957 against an FLN army of at most a few tens of thousands inside Algeria, yet withdrew in 1962 after de Gaulle decided to negotiate an end to a war that could not be won politically. The decisive resource was the will of French voters and governments.

Model body paragraph (paragraph 1). The clearest case for the claim is that both the First World War and the war in the Pacific were won by the side that could replace its losses longer. In 1914 the Allies and their empires had about five times the population and nearly three times the economic output of the Central Powers, and the British blockade cut Germany off from imported food, so that by the “turnip winter” of 1916–1917 German civilians were going hungry. When American loans, food and soldiers were added from 1917, Germany could not match them. The Pacific War followed the same pattern more quickly: American output was more than four times Japan’s by 1940, so while Japan could not replace the four large carriers sunk at Midway in June 1942, the United States launched dozens more. In both wars, therefore, superior resources decided a long war of attrition, though in Europe this took four years because Germany mobilised its smaller economy so effectively.

Model conclusion. The mobilisation of resources was the most important factor in the outcome of the First World War and the war in Asia and the Pacific, because both became long wars of attrition between industrial states, in which leadership, strategy and technology mattered mainly through the resources they could command. It was not decisive in every conflict. In Algeria, France had far greater resources and lost, because the will to use them ran out before the FLN did. Resources were therefore the most important factor only where they were mobilised over a long war and backed by political will.

Comments. The thesis is clear and qualified, and the conclusion repeats it with the same condition. Every paragraph uses at least two examples and compares them (“followed the same pattern more quickly”, “in both wars”). The named factor is weighed against strategy, technology and political will. Evidence is specific: figures with their source, dates, named operations. Three regions are used, more than the minimum.

Dobbiecast History, “IB History: Master Paper 2”: an IB History teacher on planning and writing Paper 2 essays. Made for the previous course, in which Paper 2 had two essays on world history topics; the advice on planning, thesis and argument applies to Part B, but the new question formats and the two-region rule differ.

Common mistakes in Section B

Two mini-essays. One half on each example, with no connections between them. Use both examples in every paragraph.
Narrative instead of argument. A chronological account of a war or a regime, with the question mentioned at the end. Start each paragraph with an argument that answers the question.
Ignoring the named factor. A Part B essay on resources that becomes a general essay on why the Allies won. The named factor must be the centre of the essay, weighed against others.
Invalid or out-of-range examples. The Cold War as a single “conflict”, the two theatres of the Second World War as two wars, an authoritarian state from before 1750.
A judgement that contradicts the essay. A conclusion that resources were “not the most important factor” after four paragraphs showing that they were. Plan the judgement before writing the introduction.
Repeating Part A material in Part B. You may use the same example in both parts, but the material must be adapted to the new question.

Social Studies Samurai, “IB History Paper 2: How To Write a Strong Paper 2 Essay [Authoritarian States Sample]”: essay structure with a sample answer on authoritarian states. Made for the previous course; use it for paragraph structure and the use of evidence, and adapt it to the new Part B question and the two-region rule.

Self-check

To do:
I can explain how a Section B question is built and why I need to revise the whole thematic study.
To do:
I can write a Part A answer with two explained points, specific evidence and explicit causal links.
To do:
I know the four IB regions and which region each of my prepared examples belongs to.
To do:
I can check that my examples are valid, distinct and inside the thematic study’s dates.
To do:
I can plan a Part B essay organised by argument, with both examples in every paragraph.
To do:
I can write a qualified thesis and a conclusion consistent with it.
To do:
I can weigh the factor named in a question against at least two others.

Carry on with History in Augment

With a free account, Augment remembers where you stopped in the notes and which questions you have marked.

Start free