EE Playbook
Show focused research, precise political terminology, and a sustained argument built from evidence.
This guide keeps the essay anchored to a manageable research question, relevant political concepts, and a coherent evaluation of evidence.
Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.
Examiner Focus
Topic, research question, and methodology. Assesses clarity of focus and how research is undertaken.
Top-Band Move
- Topic communicated accurately/effectively - Research question clear and focused - Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection
Common Penalty
- Topic communicated unclearly/incompletely - Research question stated but unclear/too broad - Methodology limited
Examiner Focus
Subject-area relevance and use of appropriate terminology/concepts.
Top-Band Move
- Excellent knowledge/understanding - Good use of accurate terminology/concepts
Common Penalty
- Limited knowledge/understanding - Terminology/concepts unclear/limited
Examiner Focus
Analysis and evaluation of research.
Top-Band Move
- Excellent research/analysis - Coherent argument with well-supported conclusions
Common Penalty
- Limited research/analysis - Superficial discussion/evaluation *(Max 3 if topic inappropriate for subject)*
Examiner Focus
Structure and layout. (Note: Detailed descriptors not provided in extracted content)*
Top-Band Move
Refer to criterion descriptors for highest band performance.
Common Penalty
Refer to criterion descriptors for lowest positive band performance.
Examiner Focus
Research process and focus. (Note: Detailed descriptors not provided in extracted content)*
Top-Band Move
Refer to criterion descriptors for highest band performance.
Common Penalty
Refer to criterion descriptors for lowest positive band performance.
Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Topic communicated unclearly/incompletely - Research question stated but unclear/too broad - Methodology limited
Points 3-4
- Topic communicated adequately - Research question clear but partially focused - Methodology mostly complete *(Max 4 if topic inappropriate for subject)*
Points 5-6
- Topic communicated accurately/effectively - Research question clear and focused - Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Limited knowledge/understanding - Terminology/concepts unclear/limited
Points 3-4
- Good knowledge/understanding - Adequate use of terminology/concepts *(Max 4 if topic inappropriate for subject)*
Points 5-6
- Excellent knowledge/understanding - Good use of accurate terminology/concepts
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
- Limited research/analysis - Superficial discussion/evaluation *(Max 3 if topic inappropriate for subject)*
Points 4-6
- Adequate research/analysis - Basic discussion/evaluation
Points 7-9
- Good research/analysis - Effective reasoned argument with minor inconsistencies
Points 10-12
- Excellent research/analysis - Coherent argument with well-supported conclusions
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Aim for a question that can be answered with political analysis, not a general survey of a broad issue.
Step 2
Organise sections around political concepts, actors, and context so the argument stays focused throughout.
Step 3
Use sources to test claims, expose trade-offs, and show why some interpretations are stronger than others.
Step 4
End with a defensible answer to the research question and make clear what the evidence does and does not prove.
Did You Know?
Upload your Global Politics EE draft to Marksy and get criterion-level feedback on focus, analysis, and evaluation before you submit. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-Level Feedback
Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.