GCE A/L Political Science common mistakes
GCE A/L Political Science · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to 'critically evaluate' a concept such as sovereignty or the rule of law, the candidate writes a purely descriptive account of what the textbook says and never states a judgement, weighs competing views, or reaches a conclusion.
Command words are not decoded before writing. Candidates revise content but not the instruction verbs, and under exam pressure they reproduce memorised notes because description feels safer than committing to an argument. Marking schemes reward evaluation, so a well-written description still lands in the lower band.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the command word and write a one-line plan: definition, two competing positions, your judgement, and the criterion you used to reach it. Practise converting each descriptive paragraph into an evaluative one by adding 'however', 'this is persuasive because', and 'on balance'. Keep a list of command words with what each demands.
The candidate confuses related concepts, for example treating 'state' and 'government' as synonyms, mixing 'nation' with 'state', or using 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy' interchangeably within the same answer.
These terms are learned as a cluster of vocabulary rather than as distinct analytical tools, and everyday usage in the candidate's own language pulls toward synonymy. Sinhala, Tamil or other first-language equivalents often collapse the distinctions that the English terminology preserves.
What to do instead
Build a concept card for each term with a one-sentence definition, a contrasting term, and a concrete example (for instance, a state persists through changes of government). In every essay, define the key term in the first paragraph and use it consistently. Do a weekly five-minute matching drill pairing terms with definitions and counter-examples.
In questions on the constitution, the candidate narrates the historical sequence of amendments and constitutional provisions without analysing their institutional effect, such as how they alter the balance between executive, legislature and judiciary.
History is easier to memorise as a timeline than to analyse institutionally, and past papers often ask 'discuss the development of', which invites narrative. Candidates then reuse the same timeline answer whatever the actual question asks.
What to do instead
For each constitutional change, write three lines: what changed, which institution gained or lost power, and what the practical consequence was. Convert timelines into cause-and-effect chains. Before answering, rewrite the question in your own words to check whether it asks for chronology or analysis.
The candidate describes the formal powers of an institution from the text of the constitution but ignores the conventions, practices and political realities that determine how those powers actually operate.
Constitutional texts are the most accessible source and are memorised verbatim, while conventions and practice are learned from commentary that candidates often skip. The result is an answer that is formally correct but analytically shallow.
What to do instead
For each institution, keep a two-column table: formal power and observed practice, with a specific example in each row. In essays, add a paragraph beginning 'In practice, however...' that tests the formal rule against actual behaviour. Cite concrete episodes rather than generalities.
When explaining how a bill becomes law or how policy is formulated, the candidate lists stages in order but omits the points where political bargaining, committee scrutiny or executive dominance actually shape the outcome.
Process is taught as a flowchart, and flowcharts reward recall of sequence rather than understanding of where power is exercised. Candidates reproduce the diagram and stop.
What to do instead
Annotate each stage of the process with the question 'who can block or amend here, and why would they?' Add a short note on a real case where a stage mattered. In answers, devote at least a third of the response to the political dynamics at each stage rather than the sequence alone.
In comparative questions, the candidate describes two countries in separate blocks and never compares them, so the answer contains two mini-essays with no explicit points of similarity, difference or explanation.
Describing one case then another feels like a natural structure and is easier to plan. Without a comparative frame, candidates run out of time and never reach synthesis, and markers see no comparative analysis.
What to do instead
Organise by theme, not by country: take each dimension (executive formation, judicial review, party system) and discuss both cases within the same paragraph, then explain why they differ. Use a comparison grid in planning. Ensure every paragraph contains the name of both cases.
The candidate treats international organisations and treaties as purely legal instruments and ignores the role of national interest, power asymmetry and bargaining in shaping state behaviour and foreign policy decisions.
International relations is often revised through legal and institutional descriptions, which are easier to memorise than realist, liberal or constructivist explanations. Candidates then produce normative statements about cooperation without explaining state incentives.
What to do instead
For each institution or treaty, ask what each major state gains, what it concedes, and what enforcement mechanism exists. Practise applying at least two theoretical lenses to one case and stating which explains it better. Attach a concrete national-interest example to every institutional claim.
When asked about development, the candidate equates development with GDP growth and ignores distribution, capability, sustainability and institutional quality, or uses the terms 'growth' and 'development' as if identical.
Growth statistics are the most familiar and quotable indicator, and school syllabi often emphasise economic data. Candidates then answer distributional or welfare questions with growth figures alone.
What to do instead
Keep a table of development indicators mapped to what each measures and what it misses (GDP, HDI, Gini, poverty headcount, institutional indices). In any development answer, explicitly distinguish growth from development in the opening and use at least two non-income indicators as evidence.
In public administration and policy questions, the candidate lists the stages of the policy cycle or the functions of the bureaucracy without connecting them to accountability, implementation gaps or the political control of administrators.
Administration is revised as a set of definitions and functions, and the political dimension of bureaucracy is rarely tested in class. Candidates therefore produce a neutral description that scores poorly on analytical criteria.
What to do instead
For each administrative concept, add a line on the political problem it addresses or creates, such as patronage, discretion or accountability. Prepare three concrete implementation-gap examples. End policy-cycle answers with a paragraph on where implementation most often fails and why.
When a question requires a contemporary example, the candidate either invents a vague or inaccurate one, or uses a single example repeatedly across every answer regardless of fit.
Current affairs are revised sporadically and often from unverified social media, while candidates fear that a missing example will cost marks. Under time pressure they reach for the most familiar case rather than the most apt one.
What to do instead
Maintain a dated case log with five or six verified contemporary examples per domain, each with source, date and the concept it illustrates. In the exam, choose the example that fits the specific claim and state its relevance explicitly. If unsure of details, describe the case generally and flag the uncertainty rather than inventing facts.