Resources About Blog Pricing Get Started Free
Paper 2 — Writing Method

The PEELE Method — How to Write a Paper 2 Response That Evaluates

Point. Evidence. Explanation. Link. Evaluation. Five steps that separate a grade 5 from a grade 7 — and a complete guide to using each one.

5-step method
Works for every Paper 2 question
Intro + body + conclusion covered
Section 1

Why Most Paper 2 Responses Underperform

The most common Paper 2 mistake is writing explanatory responses to evaluative questions. Students who score grade 5–6 explain accurately. Students who score grade 7 evaluate — they weigh arguments, consider counterarguments, and reach a substantiated judgement. PEELE is the structure that makes evaluation automatic.

The difference is not one of effort or knowledge. Grade 5 and Grade 7 responses often use the same case studies. What separates them is what the student does with that evidence: explains what happened, or evaluates what it means and how convincing that argument really is. The side-by-side below makes this visible.

Grade 5 Example Response

"The Russia-Ukraine conflict shows that sovereignty is under threat. Russia invaded Ukraine which is a violation of its sovereignty. This shows that sovereignty can be violated by more powerful states."

Explains what happened. Does not evaluate significance, does not weigh arguments, does not connect to a conceptual claim. The observation is accurate — but it earns nothing beyond a descriptive mark.

Grade 7 Example Response

"The Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates that state sovereignty is increasingly contingent on great-power recognition rather than guaranteed by international law. Russia's 2022 invasion — framed as a response to NATO expansion — reveals that formal sovereign equality masks profound power asymmetries: weaker states retain the legal form of sovereignty but lack the coercive capacity to enforce it. This challenges the liberal international order's assumption that sovereignty is self-enforcing through collective security."

Evaluates the significance. Uses a concept analytically. Makes a substantiated claim about the political order. The same case study — entirely different analytical register.

Section 2

PEELE: Each Element Explained

For each element: what it is, what it is not, a template, and a worked example — weak versus strong.

P — Point

Your argument — a clear, specific claim that directly answers the question

What it IS

  • A claim that can be agreed or disagreed with
  • Directly answers the question as posed
  • Specific enough to be proved or disproved
  • Introduces the argument of this paragraph

What it is NOT

  • "Russia invaded Ukraine" — this is a fact, not an argument
  • "Sovereignty is important" — too vague to be analytical
  • "This essay will discuss..." — structural statement, not a claim
  • A definition or background description

Template

"One key argument is that [claim about the political world] — demonstrated by [brief preview of evidence]."

Worked Example — Question: "To what extent does economic interdependence constrain state sovereignty?"

Weak Point

"Economic interdependence is very important in today's world."

Strong Point

"Economic interdependence fundamentally constrains the sovereign autonomy of debtor states — particularly those participating in China's Belt and Road Initiative — because debt dependency creates structural leverage that limits policy independence without requiring direct coercion."

E — Evidence

A specific, accurate, and politically meaningful example

What it IS

  • A precise detail — actor, decision, date, consequence
  • Specific enough that only a student who studied this case would know it
  • Directly supports the point you just made
  • One well-chosen case is better than three vague mentions

What it is NOT

  • "For example, there are many countries in the BRI" — too vague
  • "Climate change is a big problem" — not specific
  • Any reference a non-IB student could have written
  • A second argument — save that for another paragraph

Specificity Rule

If a student who hadn't studied the topic could have written your evidence, it's not specific enough. Every piece of evidence should include at least one of: a year, a named actor, a specific decision, or a precise consequence.

Template

"This can be seen in [specific case study + precise detail / statistic / actor / decision]."

Worked Example — same question

Weak Evidence

"For example, China's Belt and Road Initiative involves many developing countries."

Strong Evidence

"This is evident in Sri Lanka's experience with the Hambantota Port — leased to China for 99 years in 2017 after Sri Lanka was unable to service a $1.4 billion loan. The terms effectively transferred control of a strategically significant asset, limiting Sri Lanka's ability to exercise sovereignty over its own coastline."

E — Explanation

The analytical bridge between your evidence and your argument

What it IS

  • An analytical link — WHY does this evidence support your point?
  • What does this reveal about how the political world works?
  • Connects evidence to concept (power, sovereignty, etc.)
  • The step that earns analytical marks, not just descriptive ones

What it is NOT

  • Repeating the evidence in different words
  • Describing what happened next
  • Listing more examples without analysis
  • "This shows that..." followed by another fact

Template

"This demonstrates [concept] because [reason the evidence is politically significant — what it reveals about how power, sovereignty, legitimacy, or interdependence operates]."

Worked Example — same question

Weak Explanation

"This shows that countries can lose control of important assets."

Strong Explanation

"This demonstrates how economic interdependence can function as a mechanism of structural power. China did not use military coercion to gain access to Hambantota — it used the terms of a financial agreement. The port transfer reveals that sovereignty in practice can be constrained by economic dependency in ways that formal international law does not prohibit, and that weaker states may sign away sovereign assets not through force but through fiscal necessity."

Reconnects the paragraph back to the question — closes the analytical loop

The Link sentence is the paragraph's closing argument. It signals to the examiner that you haven't just described a case study — you've used it to answer something. Without a clear link, even strong evidence and explanation can feel unresolved. It takes one sentence.

Template

"Therefore, this suggests that [restatement of argument in light of evidence] — [connection back to the question's specific framing]."

Worked Example — same question

Weak Link

"In conclusion, this shows that sovereignty is under threat."

Strong Link

"Therefore, the BRI case suggests that the greatest threats to sovereign autonomy in the contemporary world are not military invasions — which attract international condemnation — but the structural conditions created by economic interdependence, which erode sovereignty quietly and legally."

E — Evaluation

Critical engagement with your own argument — what separates Grade 6 from Grade 7

Evaluation is not an afterthought added to the conclusion. It belongs in every body paragraph. It shows the examiner that you can hold your own argument at arm's length — acknowledge where it applies, where it doesn't, and what it fails to account for. This is the intellectual move that earns Grade 7.

Three forms of evaluation — any one works per paragraph:

1

Counterargument

"On the other hand, it can be argued that..."

2

Qualification

"However, this argument is most compelling in cases where... and less persuasive when..."

3

Significance Weighting

"While this is true, it is less significant than... because..."

Template

"However, [counterargument or qualification] — because [reason]. Alternatively, [stronger version of your own argument or synthesis]."

Worked Example — same question

Weak Evaluation

"However, not all countries are affected by this."

Strong Evaluation

"However, this argument overstates the case as a universal trend. States with significant economic leverage — such as India or Brazil — have demonstrated the capacity to resist BRI dependency terms and renegotiate agreements that threaten their strategic autonomy. The sovereignty constraint argument therefore applies most forcefully to smaller, fiscally vulnerable states, and less to middle powers with diversified economic relationships. This suggests that the threat to sovereignty through economic interdependence is asymmetric — correlated with existing power hierarchies rather than representing a systemic condition of the international order."

Section 3

Essay Planning: The 5-Minute Template

Five minutes of planning before you write will save twenty minutes of confused drafting. Below is a worked plan for a real Paper 2 question — followed by a blank template to print and use.

Question: "Evaluate the extent to which non-state actors challenge state power in the contemporary world."

Worked Plan — 5 minutes

Key Verb

Evaluate — I must weigh evidence and reach a judgement. A balanced discussion is not enough: I need a substantiated answer to "to what extent."

Core Concept

Power (state vs non-state actors) — I should also bring in legitimacy (non-state actors challenging state authority through normative claims) and sovereignty (Weberian monopoly on violence).

Scope

"Contemporary world" — use cases from 2010 onwards. Avoid Cold War or pre-2000 examples as primary evidence.

My Argument

Non-state actors significantly challenge state power in specific domains — particularly human rights norm-setting and transnational terrorism — but states retain structural dominance through control of territory, legal authority, and military force.

Body Paragraph Plan

P1

For: NSAs challenge state power through norm entrepreneurship — Human Rights Watch / ICC — legitimacy / soft power concept — Evaluation: enforcement gap limits impact

P2

For: Transnational terrorism demonstrates NSA coercive power — ISIS territorial control 2014–2017 — challenges Weberian monopoly on violence — Evaluation: ultimately defeated by state military coalitions

P3

Counterargument: States retain structural dominance — UNSC veto power, ability to de-register NGOs, border control — sovereignty / structural power — Evaluation: globalisation reduces effectiveness of these tools

Conclusion

Non-state actors challenge state power in normative and asymmetric ways, but states remain the primary actors in the international system — particularly in areas requiring coercive authority. The challenge is real but domain-specific.

Blank Planning Template — Print and Use

Use this structure for every timed practice. Five minutes of planning. Write it by hand before you start drafting.

Key Verb + What It Requires

Core Concept(s)

My One-Sentence Argument

P1 — Point + Evidence + Evaluation angle

P2 — Point + Evidence + Evaluation angle

P3 — Counterargument + Evidence + Evaluation

Conclusion Judgement

Section 4

Writing the Introduction

A strong introduction does three things in three sentences. It does not need to be long — it needs to be clear and direct.

Define + Contextualise

Brief definition of the key concept or the central issue. One to two sentences. This is not padding — it signals that you understand what the question is actually asking about. Do not define everything: define the most analytically loaded term in the question.

Establish Your Argument

Your direct answer to the question. One clear sentence. This is the most important sentence in your essay — state your position before you prove it. "To a significant extent... however..." is a stronger framing than "there are arguments on both sides."

Signpost Your Structure

One sentence naming the cases or arguments you'll develop. This is a roadmap — not a list of things you intend to "discuss." Frame it as: "This essay will argue [X] through analysis of [case A], [case B], and [counterargument C]."

Worked Introduction — Grade 5 vs Grade 7

Question: "Evaluate the extent to which non-state actors challenge state power in the contemporary world."

Grade 5 Introduction

"In today's world, non-state actors are very important. They include NGOs, terrorist groups, and international organisations. This essay will discuss whether non-state actors challenge state power. There are many examples of this happening around the world."

No definition is analytical. No argument is stated. "Will discuss" signals the student doesn't have a clear position. "Many examples" is not a signpost. The examiner cannot tell what this essay will argue.

Grade 7 Introduction

"State power — conventionally understood as the exclusive authority to exercise legitimate force within a defined territory — faces increasing contestation from non-state actors operating across and below the level of the state. To a significant extent, these actors challenge state power in specific domains, particularly through normative influence and asymmetric coercion; however, states retain structural dominance through their monopoly on legal authority, recognised sovereignty, and military force. This essay will argue this through analysis of the ICC and human rights norm-setting, the rise and fall of ISIS, and the persistent structural advantages of states in the international system."

Defines the concept analytically. States a clear, qualified argument. Signposts three specific analytical threads. The examiner knows exactly what they're about to read — and that the student has a position.

Section 5

Writing the Conclusion

The conclusion is not a summary. It is the moment when you answer the question directly and make your final analytical judgement. Three rules.

1

Answer the question directly

Use the question's exact language. If the question asks "to what extent," your conclusion must contain a direct answer to that phrase — "to a significant extent," "to a limited extent," "to a considerable but uneven extent." Do not introduce new information.

2

Weigh the strongest arguments

Don't just summarise each paragraph. Make a judgement about which argument is most persuasive and why. "The most compelling evidence is... because..." signals genuine intellectual engagement, not just recall.

3

Qualify your answer

"To a significant extent, but only in specific domains..." is more intellectually honest than an absolute claim — and it is exactly what examiners reward. Qualification is a sign of analytical sophistication, not indecision.

Worked Conclusion — Grade 5 vs Grade 7

Question: "Evaluate the extent to which non-state actors challenge state power in the contemporary world."

Grade 5 Conclusion

"In conclusion, non-state actors do challenge state power. The ICC and terrorist groups show this. However, states are still more powerful. Overall, non-state actors are important but states remain dominant."

Summarises rather than judges. No direct answer to "to what extent." No weighing of arguments. No qualification. The examiner learns nothing new from this conclusion that the body paragraphs didn't already state.

Grade 7 Conclusion

"Non-state actors challenge state power to a significant but domain-specific extent. The most persuasive evidence for their impact lies in the normative domain: institutions like the ICC have successfully indicted sitting heads of state — reshaping what sovereign impunity means — and movements like BLM have delegitimised state institutions across multiple political contexts simultaneously. However, this normative challenge has not translated into structural displacement: states retain coercive authority, territorial control, and legal monopolies that non-state actors cannot replicate. The ISIS case illustrates this ceiling most clearly: even a non-state actor capable of controlling territory ultimately could not withstand a sustained state military campaign. The challenge to state power is therefore real and consequential — but it operates through legitimacy and asymmetric disruption, not through structural transformation of the international system."

Directly answers "to what extent" with a qualified claim. Weighs arguments against each other. Uses specific evidence to support the judgement. Ends with an analytically precise synthesis, not a restatement.

Section 6

Common Mistakes That Cost Marks

These five errors appear in the majority of Paper 2 responses that score below a Grade 7. Recognise them in your own writing before the exam does.

"In this essay I will discuss..."

Wastes the introduction. The first sentence of your essay should state your argument, not announce your intentions. "In this essay I will..." is a structural statement that earns nothing. Replace it with your claim.

Evidence without explanation

Naming a case study earns nothing on its own. "The Rohingya crisis shows that human rights are violated" is a description. You must explain what the Rohingya crisis reveals about how sovereignty, legitimacy, or power operates — that is the analysis.

Evaluation only in the conclusion

Evaluation should appear in every body paragraph, not saved for the end. A conclusion-only "however, on the other hand..." tells the examiner you weren't thinking critically throughout — you were describing, then hedging at the end.

Ignoring the question's specific verb

"To what extent" requires a qualified judgement. "Discuss" requires multiple perspectives. "Evaluate" requires weighing evidence. Read the command verb and structure your response accordingly — the verb tells you what the examiner is looking for.

One case study across the whole essay

Paper 2 asks for at least two examples from different contexts. Using only the Russia-Ukraine war for every paragraph — however deeply — does not demonstrate the breadth the mark scheme requires. Use different cases for different arguments.

Section 7

Practice Question

Apply everything in this guide to the question below. Use your 5-minute planning template first, then write under timed conditions.

Paper 2 Practice Question

"Evaluate the extent to which international institutions are effective in protecting human rights."

Before you write — three reminders:

Identify your line of argument before writing. What is your answer to "to what extent"? Write it in one sentence before you start your introduction.

Plan three body paragraphs. For each one, write: Point (claim) → Evidence (specific case) → Evaluation (where this argument is most/least convincing).

Make sure your conclusion directly answers "to what extent" — not just "in conclusion, there are arguments on both sides."

Need case studies? — Open the Case Study Bank

Ready to Practise with Full Mark-Band Feedback?

The full TopBandGlobalPolitics program includes timed practice sets, mark-band annotated model responses, and guided concept application for every Paper 2 question type — built around the PEELE method.

Unlock Full Access Open Case Study Bank

14-day money-back guarantee. Cancel anytime.