O Level World History: Depth Studies — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, testing source- evaluation technique and understanding of the Depth Studies’ structure rather than providing genuine historical sources or full document-based analysis, since these depend on the specific sources set in any given exam series. Use these alongside genuine study of your chosen Depth Study and official past papers.

How the Depth Studies are actually examined: in Paper 1, Section B, which sets two three-part structured essay questions on each Depth Study (answer one), assessing knowledge (AO1) and explanation (AO2). Source evaluation (AO3) is examined only on Paper 2 (Document Questions), which is set on a prescribed topic from the Core Content, never on a Depth Study. Questions 2, 4 and 6 practise that Paper 2 source skill using Depth Study material — useful practice of a transferable skill, not the way a Depth Study question is set.

Related: Depth Studies revision notes

---

Section A

1. Name the five Depth Studies. [5]

2. State the three things a strong source-evaluation answer should comment on. [3]

3. State which paper, and which section of it, assesses the Depth Studies. [1]

---

Section B

4. A student practising source evaluation (the Paper 2 skill) on Depth Study B material (Germany, 1918–45) describes only what a propaganda poster shows, without commenting on who produced it or why.

(a) Identify the weakness in this answer. [2] (b) Explain how the answer should be improved. [3]

5. A student writing about Russia in 1905 and 1917 treats both years as part of one continuous revolutionary process with a single outcome.

(a) Identify the factual weakness in this framing. [2] (b) Explain the correct distinction between the two years. [3]

6. Two sources on the same historical event appear to directly contradict each other.

(a) Identify the wrong way to resolve this in an exam answer. [1] (b) Describe the better approach, referring to origin and purpose. [3]

---

Section C

7. Explain why preparation for a Depth Study (assessed through Paper 1 Section B, as a three-part structured essay) requires a different revision approach from preparation for Paper 2 (Document Questions), which is set on a prescribed topic from the Core Content. [6]

8. A student revising Depth Study E (The Second World War) prepares detailed knowledge of the European theatre only, reasoning that “a world war is still one war, so this should be enough.” Evaluate this reasoning. [6]

---

Worked answers

1. The First World War, 1914–18; Germany, 1918–45; Russia, 1905–41; The United States, 1919–41; The Second World War in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, 1939–c.1945. [5]

2. The source’s content; its origin (who produced it, when, and for what purpose); its value or limitations as evidence for the specific historical question being asked. [3]

3. Paper 1 (Structured Questions), Section B. [1]

4. (a) The answer describes the poster’s content without evaluating its origin or purpose, which is what actually determines its value as historical evidence. [2] (b) The answer should identify that the poster was produced by the German government for public display, meaning its purpose was almost certainly propaganda intended to shape public opinion rather than record it — this limits its value as direct evidence of how ordinary Germans actually felt, though it remains valuable evidence of what the regime wanted people to believe or of the regime’s own self-presentation. [3]

5. (a) 1905 and 1917 were two distinct events with different causes and different outcomes — 1905 failed to remove the Tsar, while 1917 succeeded — so treating them as one continuous process with a single outcome misrepresents what actually happened. [2] (b) 1905 was a revolution that ultimately failed to remove the Tsar from power, though it did produce some limited reforms; 1917 was a separate revolution, over a decade later, that did succeed in removing the Tsar and eventually led to the consolidation of Soviet power. [3]

6. (a) Simply declaring one source “more reliable” and dismissing the other, without explaining why. [1] (b) A better approach explains the apparent contradiction by considering each source’s origin and purpose — for example, a source produced by a political party with an interest in presenting events a particular way may differ from a private, unpublished account with less incentive to promote a specific narrative — and explains how these different origins and purposes plausibly account for the disagreement, rather than treating one source as simply correct and the other as simply wrong. [3]

7. A Depth Study is examined in Paper 1 Section B, which sets two questions on each Depth Study; the candidate answers one, a structured essay in three parts, (a), (b) and (c), assessing knowledge (AO1) and explanation (AO2). No sources are supplied, so Depth Study preparation must build secure, detailed factual knowledge of the chosen period and practise matching each part’s demand — describe, explain, or reach a supported judgement — with precise supporting detail. Paper 2, by contrast, supplies a range of sources (up to seven) on a Core Content prescribed topic that changes each exam series, and assesses knowledge (AO1) and source evaluation (AO3): candidates must interpret sources and judge their origin, purpose and value as evidence against background knowledge of that topic. So Depth Study revision centres on knowledge and explanation of one period, while source-evaluation practice belongs with the prescribed topic for the candidate’s Paper 2 series; practising source technique on Depth Study material is useful skill-building for Paper 2, but it prepares neither the Depth Study question itself nor the content of the prescribed topic. [6] (Marks for correctly locating the Depth Study in Paper 1 Section B and describing its demand, for correctly describing Paper 2’s source-based demand on the Core Content, and for drawing a genuine consequence for how revision should differ.)

8. This reasoning is weak, because although the Second World War was indeed a single global conflict, the syllabus specifically frames Depth Study E as covering “Europe and the Asia-Pacific” as related but distinct theatres, each with its own specific causes, course and consequences that a candidate is expected to know. Preparing only the European theatre risks being unable to answer a Paper 1 Section B question, or question part, set specifically on the Asia-Pacific theatre, or a question asking candidates to draw connections between the two theatres (such as how events in Europe affected Japan’s strategic calculations), which requires genuine knowledge of both sides rather than one theatre extended by assumption to cover the other. A stronger revision approach prepares both theatres, even if one receives more detailed attention than the other, precisely because “one war” does not mean the exam treats both theatres as interchangeable in its questions. [6] (Marks for correctly identifying the flaw in the student’s reasoning and explaining the syllabus’s actual expectation.)

Official syllabus

Cambridge O Level World History (2147) syllabus for 2024, 2025 and 2026 — the same syllabus cited by the Depth Studies study guide and its revision notes. Verified 2026-09-01.