Big Question Essay practice questions.

A Paper 2 Section A answer defines power carefully, illustrates it with Ferguson's account of a 1980s Lesotho development project and closes with a judgement, yet the mark stays in the middle bands. The most likely reason is that the answer

• names an area of inquiry that the candidate's class did not cover, so the ethnography that follows cannot be credited
• uses one ethnography where the question asked for a named theoretical perspective to be applied to the case
• develops the key concept and the area of inquiry but never names the real-world issue the question requires
• treats power as a key concept, whereas Section A questions are set on inquiry-specific concepts only

Answer: develops the key concept and the area of inquiry but never names the real-world issue the question requires

The compulsory Section A question binds three things together: a key concept, an area of inquiry and a real-world issue. An answer that develops only the first two is complete as an essay but incomplete as an answer to this question.

A Paper 2 question reads: 'Examine either identity or materiality in relation to conflict.' A candidate writes three paragraphs on identity and two on materiality, giving each concept roughly half the space available. The consequence for the answer is that

• marks are added for each concept in turn, so the paragraphs on materiality can only raise the total the answer finally receives
• the paragraphs on materiality are ignored, because it is the concept named second in the question
• neither concept is developed far enough to be examined, because 'either ... or' offers a choice rather than a list to cover
• the answer loses marks for length rather than for the choice made in the opening paragraph

Answer: neither concept is developed far enough to be examined, because 'either ... or' offers a choice rather than a list to cover

'Either ... or' is an invitation to choose one concept and pursue it through the whole essay. Covering both halves the space available for evidence and for the qualification that the upper bands ask for.

In a 15-mark essay on belief and knowledge, a candidate supports every claim with Evans-Pritchard's Azande material, published in 1937, and nothing else. The clearest gain from adding a second, contrasting ethnography would be that the argument

• becomes longer, and length is what separates the upper markbands from the middle ones in an essay of this kind
• no longer has to define the key concept named in the question, since two cases define it between them
• moves from description to narrative, because two field stories told in succession read better than one told in isolation
• can be shown to hold beyond one setting, and can be tested where the two cases pull apart

Answer: can be shown to hold beyond one setting, and can be tested where the two cases pull apart

A single case can only illustrate a claim; a second case lets you show its reach and its limits. The point where two ethnographies disagree is usually where the evaluative marks are earned.

A candidate arguing that ritual sustains a social order adds a paragraph on Ong's 1980s Malaysian factory material, in which possession episodes interrupted the working day. The most productive use of that paragraph is to

• qualify the thesis, so that the claim is stated as holding under conditions the essay then names
• delete it, since material that does not fit the thesis cannot earn credit in an anthropological essay
• state that the material contradicts the argument and that no conclusion can therefore be reached
• move it to the introduction, where the reader is told in advance which ethnographies will be used later on

Answer: qualify the thesis, so that the claim is stated as holding under conditions the essay then names

The upper bands ask for a counter-position that is used, not merely acknowledged. Material that cuts against the thesis converts a flat claim into a conditional one, which is a stronger position to defend.

Two essays on identity in relation to conflict cite the same ethnographies and define the concept equally well. The one placed in the higher band closes by

• summarising each ethnography once more, in the order in which the two cases appeared in the body of the answer
• answering the question directly and saying which of the two cases carries more weight, and why
• restating the definition of the key concept that was given in the opening paragraph
• listing the areas of inquiry that could not be covered in the time available for the paper

Answer: answering the question directly and saying which of the two cases carries more weight, and why

A conclusion that only recapitulates adds nothing the marker has not already read. A reasoned conclusion decides between the cases the essay has set out, which is the last of the demands made by the upper bands.

A candidate spends five minutes planning a fifteen-mark essay before writing. The most useful thing that plan can contain is

• a list of every ethnography she can remember that touches the topic of the question, so that nothing she has revised is accidentally left out of the answer
• the sentence she intends to defend, the two cases that will support it and the case that tests it
• a full set of definitions for each term appearing in the question wording
• an estimate of how many words each paragraph of the finished essay should contain

Answer: the sentence she intends to defend, the two cases that will support it and the case that tests it

A plan is useful in proportion to how much writing it prevents. Fixing the claim and the three pieces of material settles what goes in and, more importantly, what stays out; definitions and word counts can be handled while writing.