Paper 1 — Question 3

Q3 Source Comparison — How to Identify Similarities, Differences, and Perspectives

Q3 asks you to compare two sources. Most students list what each source says separately — which earns middle marks at best. This guide teaches you how to write integrated comparisons that move between sources, identify conceptual similarities and differences, and reach the top mark band.

Q3 only Comparison method 3 worked examples

Section 1

What Q3 Is — and Isn't

Q3 asks you to identify both similarities AND differences between two sources. It is not:

A Q1 response to each source separately — that earns the lowest marks
A Q2 explanation of what each source means
A Q4 evaluation of their value and limitations — that is Q4

Q3 rewards integrated comparison — moving between sources, identifying where they agree and disagree, and explaining what those agreements and disagreements reveal about the political issue.

Common Q3 Command Words

Variant 1: "Compare the perspectives of Sources A and B on [issue]."

Variant 2: "In what ways do Sources A and B agree and disagree about [issue]?"

Variant 3: "Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B."

The fundamental Q3 mistake

Students write: "Source A says X. Source B says Y." This is description, not comparison.

A comparison requires: "Both sources agree that X — however, Source A frames this as [framing A] while Source B frames it as [framing B], reflecting a difference in [perspective/interest/concept]."

Section 2

Comparing at Three Levels

Every strong Q3 response operates at three levels simultaneously. Working through all three ensures you move from description to analysis to conceptual evaluation.

Level 1

Surface comparison — what each source explicitly says

The most basic level. Identify one explicit claim each source makes and note whether they agree or disagree. This is necessary but not sufficient for top marks. Every Q3 response must start here, but cannot stay here.

Level 2

Perspectival comparison — whose perspective each source reflects

Connect the comparison to the origin of each source. Sources A and B may say similar things — but if they originate from very different actors, that similarity is more significant than if they come from similar institutions. Sources that disagree despite coming from the same kind of actor reveal a genuine political division.

Level 3 — Top band

Conceptual comparison — what the agreement/disagreement reveals about the political issue

The highest level. Use the four core concepts to interpret what the comparison reveals. "Both sources accept that sovereignty is a legitimate constraint on international action — but Source A treats sovereignty as absolute while Source B treats it as conditional on human rights compliance. This conceptual disagreement is the core of the international debate over humanitarian intervention."

Section 3

Worked Example — Comparing Two Sources on Climate Responsibility

The same two sources used in Practice Set 1 are compared below at all three levels. Read the sources first, then study how the comparison builds from surface to conceptual.

UN Secretary-General Guterres at COP28, December 2023.

"The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels... The gap between pledges and action remains a chasm. And it is the world's most vulnerable people who fall into it."

India's Environment Minister at COP28, December 2023.

"India has lifted 415 million people out of poverty in the past decade. Our development trajectory is not negotiable. Developed nations industrialised freely for 200 years and created this crisis."

Three-level comparison

Level 1 — Surface comparison

Similarity: Both sources acknowledge that current global climate commitments are inadequate — Source A refers to "the gap between pledges and action" and Source B implicitly accepts that the current regime is failing vulnerable populations.

Difference: Source A argues all states must phase out fossil fuels, while Source B argues that developing nations should not bear the same obligations as historically high-emitting developed states.

Level 2 — Perspectival comparison

Source A originates from the UN Secretary-General — institutionally positioned to represent a universal interest and speak for climate-vulnerable populations globally. Source B originates from a senior government minister of the world's fifth-largest economy by GDP — representing India's national interest in protecting its development trajectory. The disagreement reflects a structural tension between those who frame climate responsibility as universal and those who frame it as historically differentiated.

Level 3 — Conceptual comparison (top band)

Both sources use the concept of legitimacy — but define legitimate climate obligations differently. For Source A, the legitimate obligation is universal: all states, regardless of development status, must transition away from fossil fuels because the atmosphere is a shared global commons. For Source B, legitimate climate obligation is conditional on historical responsibility: states that industrialised first must bear greater costs. This reflects a fundamental disagreement about what makes a climate commitment just — a disagreement that has paralysed international climate negotiations for three decades and is reflected in the Paris Agreement's differentiated responsibility framework (CBDR-RC). The comparison reveals that climate governance is not a technical coordination problem but a political contest over whose conception of legitimate obligation prevails.

Section 4

Sentence Stems for Integrated Comparison

Use these stems to force integration between the two sources. Every time you write about one source, you should also be writing about the other.

Agreement stems

Both sources agree that [claim] — suggesting [what this consensus reveals].

Sources A and B share the view that [claim], although they reach it from different starting points: Source A [from perspective A] while Source B [from perspective B].

Despite originating from [different actors], both sources accept that [claim], which reveals [significance of the agreement].

Disagreement stems

While Source A argues that [claim], Source B directly challenges this by asserting that [counter-claim].

Source A frames [issue] as [framing A], whereas Source B frames it as [framing B] — a distinction that reflects [different interests/perspectives/concepts].

The key difference between the sources is not factual but conceptual: Source A operates within [conceptual framework] while Source B operates within [alternative conceptual framework].

Conceptual stems

Both sources invoke the concept of [concept], but use it to support contradictory conclusions — revealing that [concept] is contested rather than fixed.

The disagreement between the sources illustrates the tension between [concept A] and [concept B] that characterises [political issue].

Source A's perspective on [concept] reflects [position], while Source B's reflects [alternative position] — this conceptual disagreement is itself the political issue.

Section 5

Five Common Q3 Mistakes

Mistake 1

Writing two separate Q2 responses

Address both sources in every paragraph, not one at a time. The examiner needs to see explicit comparison — if your response could be read as two separate paragraphs with the source names swapped, it is not comparison.

Mistake 2

Only finding differences

Examiners want similarities AND differences. A response with only one is incomplete. Even sources that appear diametrically opposed typically share some common ground — both accept the legitimacy of an international forum, both acknowledge the existence of the political issue, both use a common conceptual vocabulary.

Mistake 3

Surface similarity masking conceptual disagreement

Two sources may use the same word (sovereignty, rights, development) but mean fundamentally different things by it. Identify the conceptual difference beneath the surface agreement. "Both sources mention sovereignty — but Source A treats it as a constraint on action while Source B treats it as a justification for action" is a sophisticated comparison that earns marks.

Mistake 4

Not explaining WHY the sources differ

The comparison earns marks only when you explain the reason for the agreement or disagreement. Different origins, different interests, different conceptual frameworks — any of these can explain why two sources diverge. "They differ because they represent different actors with different interests" is a start; explaining what those interests are and how they produce the specific difference in the sources is what earns the top marks.

Mistake 5

Neglecting the political significance

Every comparison should end with a sentence explaining what this agreement or disagreement reveals about the political issue, not just about the sources. The comparison is a means to an end — the end is a claim about the nature of the political issue being examined.

Section 6

Practice Prompt

Apply the three-level comparison method to the sources below before reading the model answer in Practice Set 2.

Q3 Practice Question

"Compare the perspectives of Sources A and B on the relationship between state sovereignty and international responsibility to protect civilian populations."

Source A: UN Special Adviser on R2P, February 2018, addressing the UN General Assembly on the Rohingya crisis.
Source B: Myanmar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, September 2017, responding to international criticism of military operations in Rakhine State.

See Model Answer in Practice Set 2

Put Q3 Into Practice

TopBandGlobalPolitics's practice sets include complete Q3 model responses with mark-band commentary showing exactly what makes the difference between middle and top band. Compare your response before you look at the answer.

Try Practice Set 2 View Full Pricing