Edexcel IGCSE History: Paper 2 Investigation and Breadth Studies — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board. The sources and extract below are entirely invented for this exercise — none is a real historical document, and none should be treated or cited as one.

Related: Paper 2 Investigation and Breadth Studies study guide | Paper 2 revision notes

Paper 2 offers 13 options across two independent choices (5 Historical Investigations, 8 Breadth Studies), so questions tied to one specific option would only serve a fraction of candidates. Both sections of the paper share the same three-part structure — a 6-mark question, an 8-mark question, and a 16-mark extended-writing question — but the 16-mark question works differently in each section: Section A’s Historical Investigation draws on source material throughout, while Section B’s Breadth Study 16-mark question carries no source or extract, only prompt bullets to guide your answer plus your own knowledge. The questions below use illustrative material to build the skills each part tests. Apply the same method to whichever Investigation and Breadth Study your centre has taught.

---

Section A — the Historical Investigation (illustrative)

This section is built around an enquiry into a political movement in the early twentieth century.

1(a) Describe two features of EITHER the movement’s early leadership OR the ways the movement recruited its early supporters. [6]

Source A: From a speech given by the leader of the movement to a rally of several thousand supporters, 1923.

“We have watched them fail you year after year, while we offer only ourselves and our determination to change what they will not. It is not promises we bring, but action — and it is action they fear most.”

Source B: From a private letter written by a government official to a colleague in a neighbouring district, 1923.

“I attended one of their rallies last week out of curiosity, and left troubled. The crowd was larger than any I have seen at a political meeting in this town, and their enthusiasm did not look like the passing kind. I think we have underestimated how far this has already spread.”

1(b) How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about why ordinary people supported the movement? Explain your answer. [8]

Extract C: From a history of the period, published in 2004.

“The movement’s rise owed less to any real crisis in ordinary lives than to a highly organised campaign of rallies, leaflets and slogans that made discontent feel more widespread than it was.”

1(c) How far do you agree with this interpretation of why ordinary people supported the movement? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [16]

Section B — the Breadth Study (illustrative)

A Breadth Study traces developments in a field of your choice (for example, medicine, warfare, or civil rights) across a period of roughly a century.

2(a) Explain two ways in which your studied field, in the early part of the period, was different from the same field in the later part of the period. [6]

2(b) Explain two causes of a significant development in your studied field during the period. [8]

2(c) How significant was a development of your choice in changing your studied field across the whole period?

You may use the following in your answer:

• how far the development changed practice immediately after it occurred
• how far the development’s effects lasted, or were reversed or superseded, later in the period

You must also use information of your own. [16]

Answers

1(a) Any two, each developed with specific detail rather than just named: one feature of the movement’s early leadership was that a single, recognisable figure dominated its public messaging, which gave supporters a clear focus for their loyalty [3]. A second feature was that this leadership relied on emotive, simplified language rather than detailed policy proposals to build a following [3].

1(b) Source A and Source B agree that the movement was attracting real, growing public attention: Source A’s leader, speaking to a rally of several thousand supporters, offers them “action” in place of the failures of those in power, and Source B’s official independently reports a rally “larger than any I have seen” with enthusiasm that “did not look like the passing kind,” which corroborates that the movement’s appeal was not merely leadership rhetoric [3]. However, the sources disagree in what that attention meant: Source A presents the support as confident and purposeful, while Source B’s official “left troubled” and fears the movement’s spread has been “underestimated” — a sign of official alarm rather than celebration [3]. A strong answer identifies specific points of agreement and specific points of disagreement, rather than treating the sources as simply confirming or simply contradicting one another [2].

1(c) Extract C’s claim — that organisation rather than genuine grievance explains the movement’s rise — is partly supported by Source A, whose emotive language does read as calculated persuasion rather than a neutral account of hardship [3]. It is less well supported by Source B, which was written by an unsympathetic outsider with no reason to exaggerate the movement’s appeal, and which still describes growing, apparently genuine public enthusiasm [3]. Own knowledge of the period’s economic and social pressures could support the case that real grievances existed alongside effective organisation, meaning the two explanations are not mutually exclusive [3]. A strong answer reaches a supported judgement on how far the interpretation holds, weighing the extract against both sources and against own knowledge, rather than simply restating what each source says [7].

2(a) Any two developed contrasts, for example: early in the period, practice in the field relied on methods that had changed little for generations, whereas by the later period a specific new approach or technology had become standard [3]. A second contrast: early in the period change was driven mainly by individuals working in isolation, whereas by the later period change was increasingly driven by organised institutions or professional bodies [3].

2(b) Any two developed causes of the chosen development, each explaining a mechanism rather than simply naming a factor [4 + 4].

2(c) A strong answer states which development was chosen and asserts its significance clearly at the outset [3]. It then supports this using own knowledge of the development’s immediate effects — for example, how quickly practice changed across the field once the development occurred [5] — and its longer-term effects across the rest of the period, addressing whether the change proved lasting, was reversed, or was itself superseded by a later development [5]. A strong answer reaches a judgement on significance weighed against explicit criteria such as scale, depth and duration of the change, comparing the chosen development against the field’s other developments across the period, rather than describing the one development in isolation [3].

A note on the source questions

Question 1(b) is a cross-referencing question, not a usefulness question: it asks how far one source supports the evidence of another, and answering it well means identifying specific points where the sources agree and specific points where they disagree, not judging which source is individually “more useful.” Comparing the usefulness of two sources is the house style of other boards’ papers, not this one. Question 1(c) is different again: it asks you to weigh a historian’s interpretation against source material and your own knowledge, reaching a judgement on how far you agree — not simply describing what each source or extract says.

Where marks are usually lost

• Answering 1(b) as though it asks which source is more useful, instead of how far the sources agree, and only identifying agreement without also identifying disagreement.
• Describing what a source or extract says in 1(c) without weighing it against your own knowledge to reach a supported judgement.
• Giving only one feature, way, or cause in the 6- or 8-mark parts, or naming several without developing any of them with specific detail.
• Treating a Breadth Study as a list of events rather than an argument about change, continuity, and significance across the whole period.
• Revising the Historical Investigation as if it required memorising a fixed narrative, rather than practising the describe, cross-reference and interpretation questions on genuinely unfamiliar material.
• Using shared or generic revision material without first confirming it matches your centre’s chosen Investigation and Breadth Study, given the thirteen total options Paper 2 offers across its two independent choices.

Approaching Paper 2 questions

For the cross-referencing question, always look for specific points of agreement and specific points of disagreement between the two sources, and use both in your answer — a source can support another on one point and contradict it on another. For the 16-mark interpretation question in Section A, always bring in your own knowledge explicitly rather than only describing the source or extract in front of you. The 16-mark significance question in Section B carries no source at all, so the same principle applies in reverse: don’t simply narrate the chosen development, but weigh its significance against explicit criteria using your own knowledge throughout. Either way, this is what turns a description into the judgement the mark scheme rewards. For the 6- and 8-mark description and explanation parts, develop each point you make with specific detail rather than simply naming several points, since marks are awarded for depth of development, not for quantity.