Exam-style question
Try this first
What distinction should frame an answer about movement towards multi-party system — explanations for US two-party dominance and UK movement towards a multi-party system? Use the relevant political concepts and evidence from Electoral and party systems.
- A.A relevant election, ruling, Act, convention, institutional example, prescribed thinker or extract argument explained in context.
- B.An unsupported claim that sounds plausible.
- C.A fact from another subject with no political link.
- D.A vague reference to what everyone believes.
Model answer
What a good answer should say
- The correct answer is A relevant election, ruling, Act, convention, institutional example, prescribed thinker or extract argument explained in context.
Explanation
Why this works
A relevant election, ruling, Act, convention, institutional example, prescribed thinker or extract argument explained in context. This is correct because political evidence must be precise, relevant and connected to the claim.
The UK and USA may perform a related political function, whereas their constitutional structures differ; the comparison matters because it changes power and accountability. One viewpoint supports the stated approach.
However, a competing viewpoint may be stronger in another context. Overall, AO3 judgement must follow from political evidence rather than assertion when answering "Analyse and evaluate explanations for US two-party dominance and UK movement towards a multi-party system.".
Common mistake
No common mistake is linked to this question yet.