How to do the AQA ‘How far do you agree’ question.

Some essays are monologues (speeches), others are a dialogue (discussion).  This question is the latter. 

Introduction

Imagine you are talking with your friend about football teams.  He is a great supporter of a particular team, and he declares loudly that they are the greatest team on earth. 

“How do you reckon that?” you ask, and he gives you a long harangue about the trophies they have won, the stars who played for them, their marvellous managers and past glories.  “Best team in the world,” he says. 

“They certainly are a great team,” you acknowledge, “but best team in the world?”  You mention teams such as Juventus, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich – surely they have a strong claim to be labelled the world’s greatest?  And you go on to mention some facts about his team he had neglected to share – their current bad run of form, that scandal last year, the conflict between fans and owners. 

You talk it through, and eventually agree that his team are ‘one of the best’ in most respects, but no one can deny that they are the most famous. 

The ‘How far do you agree’ question.

The ‘How far do you agree’ question is exactly the same.  You are presented with a claim – usually that something was the MAIN cause or result of a situation. 

You start by briefly giving some basic factual info – a quick summary, because it won’t earn you more than a mark – and then like your enthusiastic friend, you set about arguing as convincingly as you can that the premise of the question is correct (eg that it WAS the main cause).  This first section of your essay is like a mini ‘explain how’ essay in its own right, and you end with a mini-conclusion: “So we can see that it was hugely-important.”

But, you ask – just like you argued with your footballing friend – was it the MOST important? 

This is a critical moment in your essay, and it is vital that you flag to the reader that you are now going to look at the other side of the issue – or else your essay will just look like you are disagreeing with yourself.  So you write something like: “On the other hand… “ and you present to the reader:

(a) other factors which were also very important (and why)

(b) uncomfortable facts and ideas which suggest that the proposed factor wasn’t as important as the previous section suggested. 

And then you finish with: "Therefore..." and a concluding section which weighs the ‘arguments-FOR’ versus the ‘arguments-AGAINST’ … and hopefully comes up with a judgement less lame than “so they were all important”. 

‘The loss of territory was the main reason why Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles.’ How far do you agree with this statement? 

If you study it, you will see how I have used that frame in this essay:

• Para 1 is a short factual account of the lost territories. 
• A second section looks at the arguments which support the idea that loss of territory might have been the reason Germans hated the ToV.  Notice how it starts: “It could be argued that loss of territory was a significant reason why Germans hated the ToV:” and ends “So we can see that it might be argued that the loss of territory was critical in the Germans' hatred of the ToV.” – key sentences that keep your reader informed about where your argument is going. 
• And now we come to the vital moment in the essay – the hinge where it stops looking at one side, and starts looking at the other.  Can you see how I flagged this up to the reader?  I have used a rhetorical question: “But was the loss of territory the MAIN reason Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles?”  But you could just as well use “On the other hand…” or even perhaps just a huge “HOWEVER…”.  But remember: it is no use unless the reader notices it. 
• After this, the third section proceeds to contradict the original idea.  You will be able to see how it explains how OTHER aspects of the ToV made the Germans angry (Clause 231, Reparations, Reduced army), and how it suggests that maybe even ‘loss of territory’ was not as important as might have been thought. 
• Finally, the essay finishes with a trick which doesn’t always apply but is worth remembering – it looks at those alternatives (Clause 231, Reparations, Reduced army) and sees that ‘loss of territory’ underlay each one.  THEREFORE, it concludes, loss of territory was PERVASIVE. 

Adapting the essay to every question.

The thing about this essay is that, once you have written it, you can easily adapt it to fit ANY ‘how far do you agree’ question on how the Germans hated the ToV – you have all the ideas you need; all you need to do is to rearrange them. 

Consider the following essay frame.  It is the essay frame for ‘loss of territory’.  But what if the essay had asked about the importance of Clause 231?  Drag ‘Clause 231’ into the title and see how the essay frame uses the same elements to answer the new question.  then do the same for 'Reparatiions' and 'Army reductions':

Going Deeper

The following link will help you widen your knowledge:

Good advice from Save My Exams - good general advice

YouTube

Advice from Mr Green and History & Politics - not this question, but a similar approach and useful ideas.