Social Studies 20-1 · 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 dressed up. The wording is telling you exactly what kind of answer earns marks.
Why is every question phrased this way?
Social studies at this level is not testing whether you know the right answer, because 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 that the answer is somewhere on a line rather than at one end, and it invites you to say where and why. A marker reading “nationalism is bad” sees someone who has not engaged with the question; a marker reading “nationalism is defensible where it expands self-determination and dangerous where it defines people out of the nation” sees someone who has.
This also means a position anywhere on the continuum can earn full marks. What is marked is the defence, not the destination.
Where it turns up
- Any public argument — immigration, trade, climate policy and defence spending are all extent questions, and treating them as yes-or-no is what makes the argument useless
- Court reasoning — judgments routinely weigh competing rights against each other rather than declaring one absolute
- Policy work — “how much, under what conditions” is the form almost every real decision takes
- Social 30-1 — the same structure, with ideology in place of nationalism
- 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. Raising it and answering it is what separates a good answer from an adequate one. |
| 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 nationalism, say what you mean by it — the definitions in Related Issue 1 are the whole reason it comes first.
- 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 — explained.
- 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: “Nationalism has caused many wars.”
Better: “Competing nationalisms in the Balkans contributed to the First World War.”
Strong: “In 1914, Serbian nationalism and Austro-Hungarian fear of it turned an assassination in Sarajevo into a continental war, because the alliance system converted a local crisis into an obligation for six states.”
The third version can be checked, which is exactly why it earns more. Name the event, the place, the year and the mechanism.
Canadian evidence is expected. Conscription in 1917 and 1944, the Japanese Canadian internment of 1942, the MS St. Louis in 1939, the Quiet Revolution, Bill 101, the 1995 referendum, the TRC in 2015. Using only European examples reads as a course half-studied.
Range matters. Two examples from the same decade and the same continent 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 also something to be analysed.
Three questions for any source.
- What is the perspective? What position on the issue does it take, and how can you tell?
- Who is speaking, and why does that matter? A government poster and a survivor's memoir 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, and then whether you agree with the claim.
Sources can be used against themselves. A source you disagree with is often the most efficient way to state and then answer your counter-argument.
What costs marks
The idea: Five, and the first two are the most common by a distance.
- Refusing to take a position. “There are arguments on both sides” is a description of the question, not an answer to 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 a regime was evil is not the same as explaining how it came to power.