Social Studies 10-1 · Toolkits
Answering a “to what extent” question
Every related issue in this course is phrased the same way, and it is not a yes-or-no question in disguise. The wording is telling you exactly what kind of answer earns marks.
Why is every question phrased this way?
Because social studies at this level is not testing whether you know the right answer — on these questions there is not one. It is testing whether you can hold a position and defend it against the strongest case on the other side, which is the skill a citizen actually needs.
“To what extent” makes that explicit. It presupposes the answer is somewhere on a line rather than at one end, and invites you to say where and why. A marker reading “globalization is bad” sees someone who has not engaged with the question; a marker reading “globalization is defensible where it widens what people can choose and dangerous where it removes their ability to choose at all” sees someone who has.
It also means a position anywhere on the continuum can earn full marks. What is marked is the defence, not the destination. This is the first of three courses built this way — Grade 11 asks it about nationalism and Grade 12 about ideology — so the habit is worth building now.
Where it turns up
- Any public argument — immigration, trade, climate policy and housing are all extent questions, and treating them as yes-or-no is what makes the argument useless
- Court reasoning — judgments weigh competing rights rather than declaring one absolute
- Policy work — “how much, under what conditions” is the form almost every real decision takes
- Social 20-1 and 30-1 — the same structure, with different subject matter
- 1. The words, first
- 2. The shape of an answer
- 3. What counts as evidence
- 4. Using the sources
- 5. What costs marks
The words, first
The idea: The vocabulary the mark scheme itself uses.
| Word | What it means |
|---|---|
| Related issue | One of the four questions organising the course, each phrased as “to what extent”. |
| Position | The stand you take. It must be stated, and stated early. |
| Thesis | Your position plus the reason for it, in a sentence. |
| Evidence | Specific, checkable material: a named event, place, person and date. |
| Source | A document, image, cartoon or quotation supplied in the exam and required to be used. |
| Perspective | The point of view a source is written from. Identifying it is usually worth a mark on its own. |
| Counter-argument | The strongest case against your position, raised and answered. |
| Qualify | Narrow a claim so it is defensible: “where X, but not where Y”. |
The shape of an answer
The idea: Define, position, evidence, counter, conclude. It works for a paragraph and for a full essay.
- Define the key term in your own words. If the question says globalization, say what you mean by it — economic, cultural, political, or all three.
- State your position. Early, in one sentence, and qualified. “To a considerable extent, but only where…”
- Two or three pieces of specific evidence. Named, dated, explained — not listed.
- The strongest counter-argument, stated fairly, then answered.
- A conclusion that says something. Restating the position is fine; adding the condition under which you would change it is better.
What counts as evidence
The idea: Specific beats general every time, and a Canadian example beats a generic one.
Weak: “Globalization has hurt some people.”
Better: “Free trade has cost manufacturing jobs in Canada.”
Strong: “After NAFTA came into force in 1994, Canadian trade with the United States grew substantially while some manufacturing relocated, so the national gains and the regional losses landed on different people — which is why an average national figure answers the wrong question.”
The third version can be checked, and it names a mechanism. That is what earns the mark.
Canadian evidence is expected. NAFTA and USMCA, Canadian content rules, residential schools and the TRC in 2015, the Indian Act of 1876, Canada's ecological footprint, francophone and Indigenous language revitalization. Using only foreign examples reads as a course half-studied.
Range matters. Two examples from the same decade and the same domain make a narrower case than two that are genuinely different.
Using the sources
The idea: The exam supplies sources and requires you to use them. They are evidence, and they are also something to be analysed.
Three questions for any source.
- What is the perspective? What position does it take on the issue, and how can you tell?
- Who is speaking, and why does that matter? A corporate report and a community testimony are both evidence, of different things.
- What technique is it using? In a cartoon, caricature and symbolism; in a quotation, loaded diction; in a photograph, what has been framed in and what left out.
Do not just describe the source. “The cartoon shows a large figure standing on a small one” earns nothing on its own. Say what the exaggeration claims, then whether you agree.
A source you disagree with is often the most efficient way to state and answer your counter-argument.
What costs marks
The idea: Five, and the first two by a distance.
- Refusing to take a position. “There are arguments on both sides” describes the question rather than answering it.
- Vague evidence. No name, no date, no mechanism, no marks.
- Ignoring the sources when the question requires them.
- Strawmanning the counter-argument. A weak version, easily knocked down, shows you have not understood it.
- Moralising instead of analysing. Saying something was wrong is not the same as explaining how it happened.