IB History SL cheat sheet

Paper 1 is source-based: you answer comprehension, analysis (origin, purpose, value, limitations), and synthesis/comparison questions on a prescribed subject with four to five sources.

Comprehension questions (typically 5 marks) require extracting stated content plus inference; marks reward points drawn from specific source wording, not prior knowledge.

OPVL structure: Origin = author, date, type of document, and context of production; Purpose = what the creator intended to achieve and for whom; Value = what the source reliably reveals given that purpose; Limitation = what it cannot reveal or how purpose distorts it.

Value and limitation always depend on the specific question asked: a propaganda poster is valuable evidence of regime messaging and limited as evidence of actual living conditions.

Cross-referencing: compare sources on content (agreement/disagreement), then on provenance (why they differ - audience, timing, nationality, access to information).

For 'value of source X for historians studying Y', tie each point to Y explicitly; generic comments about bias without linking to the enquiry earn few marks.

Origin does not automatically determine reliability: a biased source is still valuable for showing that bias, and an eyewitness can be limited by proximity and hindsight.

When comparing two sources, structure by criterion (content, tone, provenance) rather than summarizing each source in turn, and note both similarities and differences.

Authoritarian states questions usually ask about rise to power, consolidation/maintenance of power, and domestic or foreign policy; each requires named case studies (commonly Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Castro, Nasser, Perón).

Rise-to-power analysis weighs structural conditions (economic crisis, weak institutions, war defeat) against the leader's methods (propaganda, force, alliances, legal manoeuvring).

Consolidation tools recur: secret police and terror, single-party legal frameworks, control of education and media, purges of rivals, and economic policy used to build support or eliminate opposition.

For conflicts, causes are grouped as long-term (alliances, nationalism, imperialism, arms races), short-term (crises, ultimatums, mobilizations), and immediate triggers.

Consequence questions demand distinction between short-term and long-term, and between political, economic, social, and territorial effects.

Comparative Paper 2 questions require explicit criteria of comparison; organize by theme (e.g., methods of control) rather than describing each state separately.

Historiographical awareness adds marks: cite named interpretations (e.g., intentionalist vs. structuralist on Nazi policy) and explain why they differ.

Dates and statistics should be accurate and sparing; one precise figure used analytically outweighs a list of undated events.

Thematic study questions ask about causes, consequences, and change/continuity over a defined period; the period boundaries stated in the question must frame the answer.

Categorize causes into political, economic, social, ideological, and technological, then rank them by significance rather than listing them.

Distinguish underlying/long-term causes from precipitating/short-term causes; the trigger is rarely the most significant cause unless argued explicitly.

Consequences include intended and unintended outcomes, and immediate versus long-term effects; assess both winners and losers.

Change and continuity: identify what changed, for whom, how fast, and to what degree; note what persisted despite apparent transformation.

Regional scope means the answer must address the specified region(s); avoid drifting into a purely national narrative when the question is regional or global.

Significance judgments must rest on stated criteria - scale of impact, duration, depth of change, or number of people affected - and be applied consistently.

Useful thematic frames: decolonization, Cold War rivalry, economic integration, migration, and the evolution of international organizations.

Causation: multicausal explanation is expected; assess the relative weight of factors and explain links between them (how one cause enabled another).

Consequence: classify by time (short/long) and sphere (political, economic, social, cultural); distinguish intended from unintended consequences.

Change and continuity: explicit comparison of before and after, with criteria for pace, depth, and reversibility of change.

Significance: judged by importance at the time, depth of impact, durability, and relevance to later developments; state the criterion used.

Perspectives: distinguish the views of participants, contemporaries, and later historians; explain the reasons for divergence rather than merely reporting it.

Counterfactual and contingency reasoning can strengthen causal argument but must be flagged as speculative.

Essays need a clear thesis in the introduction, thematic paragraphs each with a claim and evidence, and a conclusion that resolves the relative-weight question.

Provenance = author, date, place, document type, intended audience, and the circumstances of production; each element can shape reliability.

Purpose is inferred from audience and context: speeches persuade, memoirs justify or settle scores, official reports often defend policy, newspapers sell to a readership.

A source's value is relative to the historian's question: the same document can be highly valuable for one enquiry and near-useless for another.

Primary sources give access to contemporary perspective but may reflect limited information, censorship, or self-interest.

Secondary sources offer synthesis and hindsight but carry the author's interpretive framework and selection of evidence.

Memoirs and interviews are shaped by hindsight and reputation management; official statistics by the collecting regime's incentives.

Silences matter: ask whose voice is absent from the record and what that absence reveals about power and access.

Evaluate tone and language - loaded vocabulary, omission, exaggeration - as evidence of purpose, not merely as 'bias'.