AWARDED: Many candidates very well prepared. Perspectives on human nature clearly explained. Excellent examples used to develop link between human nature and state actions. MISSED: Different perspectives on power were less of a focus for some candidates who seemed more comfortable focusing on human nature. ADVICE: \"Candidates who do not make any synoptic points cannot achieve Level 4.\" \"Political commentators can be used very effectively, where relevant, in order to support points made.\" KEY PRINCIPLE (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): Address the question directly. For this question, clearly define both items being compared before explaining how they differ. Structure around specific points of difference rather than describing each item separately. EXAMINE TECHNIQUE: This is a 12-mark question requiring you to identify, explain and illustrate. Structure around two or three clear points with specific evidence for each. You do not need a full evaluative conclusion, but showing awareness of contrasting perspectives will reach the top marks. EXAMINER RECOMMENDATIONS (from ER 2025, applicable to all questions): 1. ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED: Focus on the specific comparison or examination demanded. Do not drift into evaluation or general description of each item separately. If the question asks for differences, give differences -- not a general account of both things. 2. CONSIDER BOTH SIDES: Even in a 12-mark question, showing awareness of alternative perspectives or complications lifts your answer into the top band. 3. USE EVIDENCE EFFECTIVELY: Each point of comparison needs specific supporting evidence -- named institutions, specific powers, concrete examples of how they operate in practice. 4. VALUE TIMED PRACTICE: The more practice you have of responding in exam conditions, the better you will perform. For the final question on each paper, time pressure is real -- practise to a strict timer.