Section 3: synthesis and evaluation

Section 3 is the investigation itself. Here you answer your inquiry question with an argument built from the evidence of your sources. The IB says this section assesses how you synthesise evidence from the sources to produce a response; it is reported to carry 12 of the 24 marks and about 1,400 of the 2,200 words. Sections 1 and 2 prepare for it, but this is where most marks are won or lost.

What synthesis and evaluation mean

The difference between summary and synthesis is the difference between a list and an argument. A summary tells the reader what Source 1 says and then what Source 2 says. Synthesis starts with a claim about the past and brings in Sources 1, 4 and 6 to support it, notes that Source 4 is the strongest because of its origin, and uses Source 3 to show where the claim needs qualifying. The diagram of the two structures shows the contrast.

Planning Section 3

Plan Section 3 before writing it, and plan it from the question, not from the sources. A reliable method has four steps:

1. Decide your answer. Write a one-sentence judgement on the question. It can be qualified ("largely", "only in the short term", "for the government but not for the strikers"), but it must be an answer.

2. Identify the three or four points that support or test that judgement: usually the factor or claim in the question, the main alternatives, and a counter-argument.

3. Map the evidence. Under each point, list which sources provide evidence for and against it. A point supported by one source only is weak; a source that appears under no point should perhaps not be one of your seven.

4. Order the points so that the argument builds: often the claim in the question first, then the alternatives, then the weighing that leads to your judgement.

Writing an argued paragraph

Each paragraph of Section 3 makes one point that answers the question. The opening sentence states the point; the middle brings in evidence from more than one source, with the source's perspective or reliability noted where it affects the point; and the end says what the paragraph shows about the question. The worked example compares a source-led paragraph with an argument-led one on the same material.

Evaluation inside the argument

Evaluation in Section 3 is brief and placed where it matters: when a piece of evidence carries a lot of weight, when two sources disagree, or when the only evidence for a point comes from an interested party. Phrases that do this work include:

• "… although, as a memoir written after the outcome was known, it may exaggerate …"

• "Two sources from opposite perspectives agree that …, which makes this the most secure point in the argument."

• "The only evidence for this comes from the government's own report, so it shows what officials claimed, not necessarily what happened."

• "Historians disagree here: X stresses …, using …, while Y argues …, drawing on archives opened after 1990. Y's wider evidence makes the second view more convincing."

Weighing explanations and using counter-arguments

A "to what extent" question asks for a judgement about the relative importance of something, so Section 3 must compare. It is not enough to show that the factor named in the question mattered and that other factors mattered too. The argument has to say which mattered more, in what way, and why.

Three kinds of reasoning help with weighing:

• Necessary and sufficient. Would the outcome have happened without this factor? Was this factor enough on its own? In the Berlin Wall example, the announcement was arguably necessary for an opening on that night but not sufficient, since nothing happened at the border until crowds gathered.

• Long-term and short-term. Some factors created the conditions (Hungary opening its border to East Germans in September 1989, the mass demonstrations in Leipzig from October, the Soviet leadership's refusal to intervene); others decided the timing. A strong answer explains how they connect.

• Different perspectives on the same factor. Officials, participants and historians may disagree about what mattered. Explaining why they disagree, and whose evidence is stronger, is part of the judgement.

A counter-argument is the strongest case against your judgement. Present it fairly, with its evidence, then explain why you still hold your view, or how it qualifies it. An investigation that ignores the obvious objection looks one-sided; one that answers it is more convincing.

Using historians

Historians are among your seven sources if you cite them, and they are a perspective like any other. Use their arguments as evidence to weigh, not as authorities to quote: explain what a historian argues, what evidence they rely on, and why their view is more or less convincing for your question. A historian writing after the East German archives opened in the early 1990s has evidence that one writing in 1985 did not, and that difference can be part of your evaluation. Named historians are welcome but are not the only way to show perspectives; participants, governments, journalists and witnesses are perspectives too.

The conclusion

The conclusion answers the question directly, in the question's own terms, and in a way that follows from the paragraphs before it. It should also state the limits of the answer: what the sources could not show, and how a missing perspective affects the judgement. It introduces no new evidence and no new arguments.

Using about 1,400 words well

About 1,400 words allows an introduction to the argument of 100–150 words, three or four argument paragraphs of 250–300 words each, and a conclusion of 150–200 words. That is enough for a real argument, but not for narrative. Give background only when a point needs it, and in a clause rather than a paragraph ("After Hungary opened its border in September 1989, …").

YouTube

Self-check

• To do:

  Section 3 opens with my judgement on the question, and every paragraph develops or tests it.

• To do:

  Each paragraph makes one point and combines evidence from more than one source.

• To do:

  I evaluate evidence where I use it, briefly, drawing on my analysis in Section 2.

• To do:

  I weigh the factor or claim in the question against alternatives, using reasoning such as necessary and sufficient causes.

• To do:

  I present the strongest counter-argument fairly and explain how it affects my judgement.

• To do:

  Historians' views are treated as evidence to weigh, not as the answer.

• To do:

  My conclusion answers the question in its own terms, follows from the argument and states the limits of the evidence.