Short answer: plan for three minutes, then write four parts. Start with a short introduction that defines the key term. Write two or three chains of analysis, each with its own evaluation. Finish with a conclusion that makes a judgement. Spend about 35 to 40 minutes on the whole answer. AQA marks it in five levels, and the top two need supported evaluation [2].
Where the 25-mark questions appear
On AQA Papers 1 and 2, each section ends with a 25-mark question [1][2]:
- Section A (data response): questions worth 2, 4 and 9 marks, then a 25-mark question that uses the extracts.
- Section B (essays): a 15-mark part, then a 25-mark part.
So two 25-mark questions carry 50 of the 80 marks on each paper. Getting these right matters more than anything else on the paper.
How it is marked
The examiner reads the whole answer and places it in one of five levels [2]:
| Level | Marks | What separates it |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 21–25 | Well-supported evaluation throughout, and a judgement in the conclusion |
| 4 | 16–20 | Focused analysis and some supported evaluation |
| 3 | 11–15 | Reasonable analysis, but evaluation is unsupported or superficial |
| 2 | 6–10 | Weak, unfocused analysis |
| 1 | 1–5 | Very limited knowledge and analysis |
Look at the gap between Level 3 and Level 4. It is not more knowledge. It is evaluation that is supported by a reason or evidence [2].
How long to spend
Each paper is 2 hours for 80 marks [1]. That is 1.5 minutes per mark, so a 25-mark answer is worth about 37 minutes. In practice:
- 3 minutes: plan.
- 30 to 32 minutes: write.
- 2 minutes: check your conclusion answers the exact question.
A four-part structure
- Introduction (2–3 sentences). Define the key term in the question and state what you will weigh up. No history and no list of everything you know.
- Analysis point one, with evaluation. Build a chain of reasoning: cause, then effect, then the impact on the economic agent. Use "so" and "because" to link each step. Then evaluate that point straight away: what does it depend on, and why?
- Analysis point two, the other side, with evaluation. Give the strongest counter-argument, built the same way.
- Conclusion: a judgement. Answer the question directly. Say which argument is stronger, the condition that decides it, and what would change your answer.
Two well-developed points, each evaluated, beat five thin ones. A diagram helps when it supports a step in your analysis. Draw it, label it, and refer to it in the text.
A worked plan
AQA's June 2025 Paper 1 asked students to evaluate whether oligopolies serve society well [2]. A three-minute plan might look like this:
Define: oligopoly = a market dominated by a few large firms, with high barriers to entry.
Point 1 (for): supernormal profit → funds research and development → dynamic efficiency → lower costs and better products. Evaluate: only if competition forces firms to reinvest.
Point 2 (against): interdependence → incentive to collude → higher prices, lower output, allocative inefficiency. Evaluate: depends on how well competition authorities detect collusion.
Judgement: oligopolies serve society well where competition between the firms is real. The deciding condition is the degree of rivalry, not the number of firms.
Notice that every point already carries its evaluation in the plan. That is what keeps the answer out of Level 3.
Next step: evaluation
The structure only scores if the evaluation inside it is supported. Our guide to AO4 shows six techniques that turn "it depends" into a judgement.
Read the evaluation guideMost tutors teach the subject. We teach the criterion. See the Exam Intensive programme.