📚 AS CIE History: Essay Writing Framework and Model Essays | AS CIE 历史：论文写作框架与范文
Mastering the essay is the cornerstone of success in the Cambridge International AS Level History examination. Whether you are tackling the source-based questions in Paper 1 or the structured essays in Paper 2, a robust writing framework allows you to present carefully selected knowledge, sustained analysis and balanced judgement under timed conditions. This guide provides a step-by-step approach to planning, structuring and refining your historical essays, followed by two fully annotated model answers that illustrate how high-level criteria are met in practice.
掌握论文写作是在剑桥国际 AS 历史考试中取得成功的基石。无论你应对的是试卷一中的史料题，还是试卷二中的结构性论文，牢固的写作框架都能帮助你在限定时间内呈现精选的历史知识、连贯的分析和平衡的判断。本指南提供了规划、构建和打磨历史论文的逐步方法，随后附有两篇带有详细注解的范文，展示如何在实践中满足高分段评分标准。
1. Understanding the CIE AS History Exam Essay | 理解 CIE AS 历史考试的论文要求
AS Level History (9489) assesses your ability to construct a reasoned historical argument. In Paper 2, you are required to write two essays from a choice of three in each section, typically in 45 minutes per essay. Each essay carries 20 marks, allocated across Assessment Objectives: AO1 for knowledge and understanding, AO2 for analysis, evaluation and judgement. Success does not come from simply narrating events; it demands a thematic argument that directly answers the question, supported by precise and relevant evidence.
AS 历史 (9489) 考察你构建有说服力的历史论证的能力。在试卷二中，你需要从每个部分的三个题目中选择两题作答，每篇论文通常用时 45 分钟。每篇论文满分 20 分，评分目标包括 AO1（知识与理解）和 AO2（分析、评价与判断）。成功并不是简单叙述事件，而是要求你提出一个紧扣题目的主题性论点，并用精确、相关的证据加以支撑。
Knowing the mark scheme empowers you to write with purpose. Examiners look for a clear and consistent argument throughout the essay, not just a list of points. Depth of analysis – explaining why and how something happened – is valued far more than breadth of description. Detailed factual support must be deployed selectively to reinforce the line of reasoning, not to hijack it.
了解评分标准能让你的写作更有针对性。考官寻找的是贯穿全文的清晰、连贯的论点，而不仅仅是一系列要点的罗列。分析的深度——解释某件事为何发生以及如何发生——远比描述的广度更有价值。详尽的事实支撑必须被有选择地运用，用来加强论证主线，而不是喧宾夺主。
2. Breaking Down the Question: Directive Words and Scope | 拆解题目：指令词与范围
Every CIE essay question contains directive words that signal the precise intellectual operation you must perform. Terms like ‘To what extent…’, ‘Assess the reasons for…’, ‘How far do you agree…’ and ‘Evaluate the importance of…’ demand a critical analysis that weighs different factors rather than a one-sided narrative. Begin by underlining the command word and defining the scope: the chronological period, geographical setting and key themes mentioned in the question.
每一道 CIE 论文题目都包含指令词，这些词语指示了你必须完成的精确思维操作。像”在多大程度上……”、”评估……的原因”、”你在多大程度上同意……”和”评价……的重要性”这类表述要求进行批判性分析，权衡不同的因素，而不是单方面的叙述。首先，要圈出指令词，并界定范围：题目中提到的年代范围、地理背景和关键主题。
For example, a question such as ‘Assess the reasons why the Weimar Republic faced serious challenges in the years 1919-23’ requires you not only to identify those challenges (the Treaty of Versailles, hyperinflation, political extremism) but to weigh their relative significance and show how they were interconnected. A successful essay will also consider the Republic’s ability, or lack thereof, to withstand those pressures, thereby addressing the ‘assess’ component.
例如，一道题为”评估魏玛共和国在 1919-1923 年间面临严重挑战的原因”的问题，不仅要求你识别这些挑战（《凡尔赛条约》、恶性通胀、政治极端主义），还要权衡它们的相对重要性，并展示它们是如何相互关联的。一篇成功的论文还应考虑共和国抵御这些压力的能力或无能，从而回应”评估”这一要求。
3. Planning Your Response: Brainstorming and Outlining | 规划你的回答：头脑风暴与提纲
Resist the temptation to start writing immediately when you see the question. Spend the first five to seven minutes planning. Jot down relevant factual material – names, dates, events, concepts – that immediately spring to mind. Then organise these under two or three thematic headings that will form the backbone of your argument. Avoid chronological narratives unless the question explicitly demands an account of change over time; even then, each chronological paragraph must be driven by an analytical point.
看到题目时，要克制住立即动笔的冲动。花上五到七分钟进行规划。迅速记下脑中浮现的相关事实材料——人名、日期、事件、概念。然后将它们归入两到三个主题性标题之下，这些标题将构成你论证的主干。避免按时间顺序叙述，除非题目明确要求陈述随时间推移而发生的变化；即便如此，每个按时间顺序展开的段落也必须由一个分析性的观点驱动。
Your plan should include a one-sentence thesis statement that encapsulates your overall argument. This thesis acts as a compass, ensuring every subsequent paragraph contributes directly to answering the question. For instance, a thesis for a question on the Treaty of Versailles might read: ‘The Treaty was a significant source of German resentment, but it was the pre-existing political instability and the severe economic impact that transformed resentment into a genuinely destabilising force.’
你的计划中应包含一句论点陈述，概括你的整体论证。这一论点就像指南针，确保随后的每一段落都直接服务于答题。例如，一道关于《凡尔赛条约》的题目，其论点可以表述为：”该条约是德国怨恨情绪的重要根源，但是，是原本就已存在的政治动荡和严重的经济冲击，将怨恨转化为真正动摇国本的力量。”
4. Crafting a Strong Introduction | 撰写强有力的引言
Your introduction sets the tone for the entire essay and should be concise – no more than four or five sentences. Open with a sentence that establishes the historical context relevant to the question. Then, rephrase the question to show you have understood its demands, immediately followed by your thesis. Optionally, you can add a brief ‘road map’ sentence indicating the main factors you will discuss, but avoid simply listing them mechanically.
引言为整篇论文定下基调，应简明扼要——不超过四到五句话。开头用一句话建立与问题相关的历史背景。然后，转述题目以表明你已理解其要求，紧接着提出你的论点。你也可以选择性地加上一句简短的”路线图”，指出你将讨论的主要因素，但要避免机械地罗列。
Consider this introduction for the question ‘How far do you agree that the most important cause of the 1905 Russian Revolution was the Russo-Japanese War?’: ‘The Revolution of 1905 swept across the Russian Empire, exposing deep fissures in the autocratic system. While the humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War certainly acted as an immediate trigger, the revolution’s underlying causes – long-term peasant discontent, the alienation of the intelligentsia and the burgeoning industrial working class’s grievances – were arguably of greater structural significance.’
考虑针对”你在多大程度上同意日俄战争是 1905 年俄国革命的最重要原因？”这一问题的引言：”1905 年革命席卷了俄罗斯帝国，暴露了专制体制的深层裂痕。虽然日俄战争中的耻辱性失败无疑扮演了直接导火索的角色，但革命的深层原因——长期的农民不满、知识分子的疏离以及新兴产业工人阶级的怨愤——可以说具有更大的结构性意义。”
5. Building Effective Body Paragraphs: P.E.E.L. Structure | 构建有效的主体段落：PEEL 结构
Each body paragraph should explore one distinct analytical point that supports your overall argument. A widely used and effective structure is P.E.E.L.: Point, Evidence, Explanation/Evaluation, and Link. Start with a clear topic sentence that states the point. Follow with precise factual evidence – not a narrative dump, but carefully chosen details. Then explain how the evidence supports your point, and if possible, evaluate its significance or limitations. End by linking back to the question or forward to the next paragraph.
每个主体段落应探讨一个明确的、支撑你整体论证的分析性观点。一个被广泛使用且有效的结构是 P.E.E.L.：观点、证据、解释/评价、联系。以一句清晰的主题句开头，陈述观点。接着提供精确的事实证据——不是叙事堆砌，而是精心挑选的细节。然后解释证据如何支撑你的观点，并在可能时评价其重要性或局限性。结尾与问题相呼应，或为下一段做铺垫。
For example, a paragraph on hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic could begin: ‘The hyperinflation crisis of 1923 devastated the savings of the middle class, fatally undermining their trust in the democratic system.’ Evidence: ‘By November 1923, one US dollar was worth 4.2 trillion marks.’ Explanation: ‘This wiped out the value of pensions and war bonds, alienating a group that had been the natural constituency of moderate parties, driving many towards extremist alternatives.’ Link: ‘Thus, economic trauma sharpened the social divisions that made the Republic vulnerable to political extremism.’
例如，一个关于魏玛共和国恶性通胀的段落可以这样开头：”1923 年的恶性通胀危机摧毁了中产阶级的储蓄，致命地破坏了他们对民主制度的信任。”证据：”到 1923 年 11 月，一美元可兑换 4.2 万亿马克。”解释：”这抹去了养老金和战争债券的价值，疏远了这个原本属于温和党派天然支持者的群体，将许多人推向了极端主义选项。”联系：”因此，经济创伤加剧了社会分裂，使共和国难以抵御政治极端主义。”
6. Weaving in Historiography and Different Interpretations | 融入史学史与不同解释
To achieve top marks for analysis and evaluation, you need to demonstrate awareness that historical events are open to multiple interpretations. This does not mean naming every historian you have read. Rather, you can introduce a contrasting viewpoint by using phrases such as ‘Some historians have argued that…’ or ‘The orthodox interpretation emphasises…, yet revisionist accounts suggest…’ You should then assess which interpretation is more convincing in light of the evidence you have presented.
要想在分析与评价方面获得高分，你需要展示出对历史事件存在多种解释的自觉意识。这并不意味着要罗列你读过的每一位历史学家。相反，你可以通过使用”一些历史学家认为……”或”正统解释强调……，然而修正主义的论述则指出……”这类短语来引入对比观点。接下来，你应结合自己提供的证据，评估哪一种解释更具说服力。
For example, in an essay on the origins of the Cold War, you might write: ‘While early Western historiography laid the burden of responsibility squarely on Stalin’s expansionist ambitions, post-revisionist scholars have highlighted the mutual misunderstandings and security dilemmas that drove the escalation. The evidence of Soviet concerns about a Western-dominated Germany, alongside the ideological rigidity of US policy, suggests that a purely one-sided attribution of blame is inadequate.’
例如，在一篇关于冷战起源的论文中，你可以写道：”虽然早期西方史学将责任完全归咎于斯大林扩张主义的野心，但后修正主义学者则强调了推动局势升级的相互误解和安全困境。苏联对西方主导下的德国的担忧的证据，以及美国政策的意识形态僵化，表明纯粹将责任归于单方的做法是不充分的。”
7. Sustaining a Coherent Argument Throughout | 保持前后一致的论证
A common pitfall is to treat each paragraph as an isolated block of information. Instead, your essay should read as a single, developing argument. This can be achieved through reiterating your thesis in different words at key turning points, using connecting words (‘Moreover’, ‘In contrast’, ‘Consequently’) to signal the relationship between ideas, and consistently reflecting on how each factor answers the question. Check every paragraph: does it move my argument forward or merely add detail?
一个常见的陷阱是将每个段落视为孤立的信息块。相反，你的论文应该读起来像一个统一、不断推进的论证。要做到这一点，可以在关键的转折点用不同的措辞重申你的论点，使用连接词（”此外”、”相较之下”、”因此”）来表明观点之间的关系，并不断反思每一个因素如何回应问题。检查每一段落：它是否推进了我的论证，还是仅仅添加了细节？
Imagine an essay evaluating the importance of nationalism in Italian unification. If your argument is that nationalism provided a mobilising ideology but that great-power diplomacy was the decisive immediate factor, your paragraphs should consistently weigh nationalism against other factors – Cavour’s statecraft, the role of foreign intervention – rather than abandoning that comparative framework halfway through the essay.
想象一篇评价民族主义在意大利统一中重要性的论文。如果你的论点是民族主义提供了动员人心的意识形态，但大国政治才是决定性的直接因素，那么你的各个段落就应始终将民族主义与卡富尔的外交手腕、外国干预的作用等其他因素进行权衡，而不是在半途抛弃那个比较框架。
8. Writing a Convincing Conclusion | 撰写有说服力的结论
The conclusion is your final opportunity to cement the examiner’s impression of your essay. It should not be a simple repetition of your introduction but should synthesise the insights developed in the body. Start by succinctly summarising your main findings, then return to the thesis and refine it in light of the discussion. Offer a clear, direct judgement that answers the question explicitly. If the question starts with ‘To what extent…’, give a nuanced conclusion set on a scale (for example, ‘only to a limited extent’, ‘largely, but with crucial exceptions’).
结论是你巩固考官对论文印象的最后机会。它不应是引言的简单重复，而应综合主体部分中形成的洞见。开头简要总结你的主要发现，然后回到论点，并根据讨论对之加以提炼。给出一个清晰、直接的判断，明确回答题目。如果题目以”在多大程度上……”开头，则要给出一个设定在尺度上的、富有层次感的结论（例如，”仅在有限程度上”，”在很大程度上，但有重要例外”）。
Never introduce new evidence or arguments in the conclusion. It should provide a sense of closure, leaving the reader convinced that you have followed a logical and evidence-based path to your judgement. A strong final sentence might point to broader implications or the wider historiographical significance of the debate, but keep it tightly focused on the question.
绝不要在结论中引入新的证据或论点。结尾应给人以收束之感，让读者确信你沿着一条合乎逻辑且建立在证据基础上的道路得出了判断。一个有力的结束句或许可以指出该争论更广泛的意义或史学意义，但要严格紧扣题目。
9. Model Essay 1: Treaty of Versailles Fairness | 范文一：《凡尔赛条约》的公正性
Question: ‘To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles a fair peace?’ (Note: This model essay is annotated in brackets to highlight structural features.)
题目：”《凡尔赛条约》在多大程度上是一个公正的和约？”（注：此范文中括号内的内容为结构评注。）
The armistice of November 1918 raised hopes for a peace built on the principles of justice and self-determination that President Wilson had articulated in his Fourteen Points. [Historical context] Ultimately, however, the Treaty of Versailles of June 1919 failed to establish a fair peace, not because all its terms were excessively punitive, but because its application was inconsistent, its moral basis was undermined by the victors’ own security fears, and it left Germany both embittered and capable of future revision. [Thesis with clear judgement]
1918 年 11 月的停战协定曾唤起人们的希望：和平将建立在威尔逊总统在”十四点计划”中所阐述的公正与自决原则之上。[历史背景] 然而，最终，1919 年 6 月的《凡尔赛条约》未能建立一个公正的和平，这并非因为其所有条款都过于严厉，而是因为它的应用前后不一，其道德基础被战胜国自身的安全担忧所侵蚀，并且它既留下了满怀怨恨的德国，又赋予了其未来修订条约的能力。[包含明确判断的论点]
On one level, certain territorial adjustments were defensible under the principle of national self-determination. [Point 1, fair aspects] The restoration of an independent Poland, the creation of Czechoslovakia, and the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to France corrected historical injustices. However, the denial of self-determination to German-speaking populations in the Sudetenland, the Polish Corridor, and the prohibition of Anschluss with Austria directly violated Wilsonian ideals. [Evidence] Applying self-determination selectively, the Allies undermined their own moral authority.
在某种程度上，一些领土调整依照民族自决原则是有理可据的。[论点 1，公平的方面] 独立波兰的恢复、捷克斯洛伐克的建立以及阿尔萨斯-洛林归还法国，纠正了历史上的不公。然而，拒绝给予苏台德地区、波兰走廊的德语人口自决权，以及禁止德奥合并，则直接违背了威尔逊式的理想。[证据] 盟国对自决的选择性适用，削弱了他们自身的道德权威。
More contentious were the disarmament and reparation clauses, which were designed to be punitive but were barely enforced. [Point 2, military and economic terms] The German army was reduced to 100,000 men, yet no mechanism ensured long-term allied disarmament, as promised. Reparations, fixed in 1921 at £6.6 billion, were economically ruinous but were largely evaded by Germany through the 1920s. [Evidence + evaluation] The perception of a ‘diktat’—an imposed peace with no negotiation—festered as a political weapon inside Germany, but the actual economic impact was short-lived. Thus, the Treaty’s weakness was less its harshness than its failure to enforce the terms consistently, leaving Germans with a sense of victimhood while not permanently crippling their power.
更具争议的则是裁军和赔款条款，这些条款旨在惩罚德国，但几乎没有得到执行。[论点 2，军事与经济条款] 德国军队被削减至 10 万人，然而却没有建立任何机制来确保协约国方面作出长期裁军的承诺。1921 年确定为 66 亿英镑的赔款在经济上是毁灭性的，但德国在 1920 年代却大规模逃避了赔付。[证据+评价] “强令和约”——一种未经谈判的强制和平——作为一个政治武器在德国国内发酵，但其实际的经济影响却是短暂的。因此，条约的弱点与其说是其苛刻性，不如说是它未能持续执行条款，给德国人留下了一种受害感，同时却又没有永久性地削弱其实力。
The deepest injustice, however, lay in the war guilt clause, Article 231. [Point 3, moral dimension] By forcing Germany to accept sole responsibility for the war, the Allies entrenched a bitter sense of dishonour that fuelled nationalist propaganda for two decades. This was not just an emotional reaction; it delegitimised the Weimar Republic from its birth. [Link to wider impact] Combined with the refusal to allow Germany into the League of Nations on equal terms, the Treaty created a sense of exclusion that made peaceful revision all but impossible.
然而，最深的不公在于战争罪责条款，即第 231 条。[论点 3，道德维度] 通过强迫德国接受独自承担战争责任，协约国固化了深深的屈辱感，这种屈辱感在二十年里为民族主义宣传推波助澜。这不仅仅是一种情绪反应；它使得魏玛共和国从诞生之日起就被去合法化。[联系更广泛的影响] 再加上拒绝让德国以平等的条件加入国际联盟，条约制造了一种被排斥的感觉，使得和平修订条约几乎成为不可能。
In conclusion, the Treaty of Versailles can be judged fair only to a limited extent. [Synthesis and judgement] While some territorial provisions aligned with self-determination, the selective application of principles, the economic and military imbalance, and, above all, the humiliating war guilt clause rendered it deeply flawed. Its ultimate failure was not that it was a ‘Carthaginian peace’ but that it was both harsh enough to provoke lasting resentment and weak enough to allow Germany to overturn it. [Final nuanced evaluation]
综上所述，《凡尔赛条约》仅在有限程度上可被认为是公正的。[综合与判断] 虽然部分领土条款与自决原则相一致，但对原则的选择性适用、军事和经济上的失衡，以及最为重要的、带有羞辱性质的战争罪责条款，使得该条约存在深层缺陷。它最终的失败之处，不在于它是一个”迦太基式的和平”，而在于它既严苛到足以激起持久的怨恨，又软弱到允许德国将其推翻。[最终有层次感的评价]
10. Model Essay 2: Causes of the Cold War by 1949 | 范文二：1949 年冷战爆发的原因
Question: ‘Assess the reasons for the emergence of the Cold War in Europe by 1949.’
题目：”评价截至 1949 年冷战在欧洲出现的原因。”
The emergence of the Cold War by 1949 resulted from a complex interplay of ideological antagonism, security fears, and mutual misperception. [Thesis] While the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 had established a fundamental East-West divide, it was the power vacuum at the end of the Second World War and the subsequent actions of both superpowers that converted latent hostility into a rigid bipolar confrontation. This essay will argue that Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe was the immediate catalyst, but that American economic and strategic initiatives both fed Soviet perceptions of encirclement and accelerated the division of Europe.
到 1949 年，冷战的浮现是意识形态对立、安全忧虑和相互误解复杂交织的结果。[论点] 尽管 1917 年布尔什维克革命确立了一道基本的东西方鸿沟，但正是二战末期的权力真空以及两个超级大国随后的行动，将潜在的敌意转化为僵硬的二元对抗。本文将论证，苏联在东欧的扩张主义是直接催化剂，但美国的经济和战略举措既强化了苏联的被包围感，又加速了欧洲的分裂。
One pivotal reason was Stalin’s determination to create a buffer zone in Eastern Europe as a guarantee against future western invasion. [Point 1] The Soviet Union had suffered around 27 million deaths during the war, and from Stalin’s perspective, the installation of pro-Moscow governments in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and elsewhere was a defensive necessity. The imposition of communist regimes, often through rigged elections and coercion, broke the promise of free elections made at Yalta. [Evidence] Western leaders interpreted this not as defensive consolidation but as a deliberate programme of ideological expansion.
一个关键原因是斯大林决心在东欧建立一个缓冲地带，以防范未来的西方入侵。[论点 1] 苏联在战争中遭受了约 2700 万人的死亡，从斯大林的角度看，在波兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚等地扶植亲莫斯科政府是一种防御必需。通过操纵选举和胁迫等手段强行建立共产党政权，违背了雅尔塔会议上关于自由选举的承诺。[证据] 西方领导人将此解读为不是防御性的巩固，而是一个蓄意的意识形态扩张计划。
However, Western actions also significantly contributed to the hardening of divisions. [Point 2, balance] The Truman Doctrine of 1947 pledged US support for ‘free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation’, committing America to an active containment strategy. The Marshall Plan, offering massive economic aid for European recovery, was intended to stabilise western Europe and prevent the spread of communism by alleviating economic hardship. Yet to the Soviet Union, it appeared as a strategic tool to bind western European states into an American-led bloc, undermining Soviet influence. Moscow’s response—the establishment of Cominform and the rejection of Marshall aid for Eastern Europe—consolidated the economic and political division of the continent.
然而，西方的行动也极大地促进了分裂的固化。[论点 2，平衡] 1947 年的杜鲁门主义承诺美国支持”正在抵抗武装征服企图的自由民族”，使得美国致力于积极的遏制战略。马歇尔计划提供了大规模经济援助用于欧洲重建，旨在通过缓解经济困境来稳定西欧并防止共产主义传播。但在苏联看来，这似乎是一个将西欧国家绑入美国主导集团的战略工具，削弱了苏联的影响力。莫斯科的回应——成立共产党情报局和拒绝东欧接受马歇尔援助——巩固了该大陆在经济和政治上的分裂。
The Berlin Blockade of 1948-49 was the crisis that crystallised the Cold War. [Point 3, turning point] Stalin’s attempt to cut off Western access to West Berlin, in response to currency reform and moves towards a West German state, was the first direct military confrontation of the post-war era. The Western Allies’ successful airlift demonstrated American resolve and turned Berlin into a potent symbol of resistance to Soviet pressure. The blockade’s failure accelerated the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in April 1949 and the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany in May, formally splitting Germany and Europe into two opposing camps.
1948-49 年的柏林封锁是使冷战具象化的危机。[论点 3，转折点] 斯大林试图切断西方通往西柏林的通道，以回应货币改革和建立西德国家的举措，这是战后时期的首次直接军事对抗。西方盟国成功的空运展示了美国的决心，并使柏林成为抵抗苏联压力的强大象征。封锁的失败加速了 1949 年 4 月北约的成立和 5 月德意志联邦共和国的建立，正式将德国和欧洲分裂为两个对立的阵营。
In assessing the reasons, it is clear that no single power bears exclusive responsibility. [Judgement] Soviet moves in Eastern Europe triggered initial Western alarm, but the American response—combining economic largesse, military commitment, and ideological rhetoric—deepened the East-West gulf. Mutual insecurity drove an action-reaction cycle from which neither side could extricate itself without appearing weak. By 1949, an institutionalised Cold War, replete with military alliances and economic blocs, had become a self-perpetuating reality.
在评价诸多原因时，显然任何单一大国都不应承担全部责任。[判断] 苏联在东欧的举动引发了西方最初的警觉，但美国的回应——将经济慷慨、军事承诺和意识形态宣传相结合——加深了东西方鸿沟。彼此的不安全感推动了一个行动-反应的循环，双方都无法从中脱身而不显得软弱。到 1949 年，一个拥有军事联盟和经济集团的制度化冷战，已成为一个自我延续的现实。
11. Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them | 常见错误与如何避免
Even well-prepared candidates can fall into predictable traps. One is narrative drift: writing a chronological story of what happened without maintaining an argument. To avoid this, keep asking yourself ‘So what?’ after each factual statement. Another is ignoring the question’s command word. If a question asks ‘How far…’, you must give a balanced assessment, not a one-sided account. A third is shallow analysis – simply describing a factor but never explaining why it was more or less important than others.
即便是准备充分的考生也可能落入一些可以预见的陷阱。其一是叙事偏航：写一个按时间顺序排列的故事，却没有维持一个论点。要避免这一点，就要在每一句事实陈述之后都问自己”那又怎样？”。其二是忽略题目的指令词。如果题目问”在多大程度上……”，你就必须给出平衡的评估，而不是一面倒的叙述。其三是分析肤浅——只是描述一个因素，但从不解释它为何比其他因素更重要或不那么重要。
Time mismanagement is equally dangerous. Never spend so long on your first essay that the second is rushed and incomplete. Practise writing full essays under timed conditions well before the examination. In the exam, stick strictly to your allocated time for each essay, moving decisively to your conclusion when you have five minutes left, even if you have more to say. A completed essay with a strong conclusion will score higher than an incomplete one with brilliant detail.
时间管理不当同样危险。绝不要在第一篇论文上花费太久，以致第二篇仓促而不完整。在考试前就要在限时条件下练习完成整篇论文。在考试中，严格遵守分配给每篇论文的时间，当只剩五分钟时，坚决转向结论部分，即便你还有更多想说。一篇有着有力结论的完整论文，得分将高于一篇细节精彩却未完成的论文。
Finally, avoid over-generalisations and unsupported assertions. Every major claim must be pinned down by precise factual reference. Instead of writing ‘the economy was bad’, state ‘industrial production fell by 40%’ or ‘unemployment rose to six million’. Precision not only demonstrates knowledge but also makes your analysis more convincing.
最后，避免过度泛化和无支撑的断言。每一个主要论断都必须立足于精确的事实依据。与其写”经济很糟糕”，不如写”工业生产下降了 40%”或”失业人数升至六百万人”。精确性不仅能展示知识，也能使你的分析更具说服力。
Published by TutorHao | History Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导