Why is "Describing (stating what something is or what happened) when the question asks you to analyse or evaluate" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Description feels like 'writing about' the topic and is easier than explanation, so under pressure students narrate the example or label the feature and stop there. How to avoid it: After every fact or feature, force the next rung with a stem: 'this works by...' (analysis) or 'this is effective because...' (evaluation). If your sentence only says WHAT, add WHY or HOW GOOD. Description alone cannot reach the higher bands. Source: 8021 Examiner Reports — 'largely descriptive responses cannot access the higher bands'

Why is "Analysing (explaining how language works) when the question asks you to evaluate — or evaluating when it asks you to analyse" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Students learn one skill, get comfortable with it, and apply it everywhere, ignoring the command word — most often treating Paper 2 Q8 (evaluate) like Q6 (analyse) and re-listing features. How to avoid it: Circle the command word first and name the rung. If it says 'evaluate' or 'assess', deliver a verdict with criteria, not another feature list; if it says 'analyse', deliver mechanism, not an opinion. Q6 = how it works; Q8 = how good it is. Source: 8021 Examiner Reports — Section B: candidates answer the evaluation question by listing features rather than judging effectiveness

Why is "Evaluating with no criteria — asserting that something is 'good' or 'effective' without saying by what standard" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Students know a judgement is wanted but treat it as a feeling to be stated, rather than a verdict that must be measured against something. How to avoid it: Always name or imply the criterion: effective at WHAT (persuading? proving?); good BY WHAT MEASURE (reliability of evidence? logical validity? balance?). 'Convincing because the evidence is reliable but the counter-view is ignored' is supported; 'a good argument' is not. Source: 8021 Q8 band descriptors — evaluation must be 'well-reasoned and substantiated', not asserted

Why is "Feature-spotting — naming techniques or examples ('the writer uses a simile') with no explanation of how or why they work" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Students are taught to identify techniques and assume that spotting them is the skill, so they produce a checklist of labels with no effect attached. How to avoid it: Treat the named feature as the START, not the answer. Quote it, name it, then spend MORE words on the effect: 'this works by... so the reader...'. In Section B, identification alone is Band 1; explanation of effect is Band 3. Source: 8021 Examiner Reports — 'superficial identification of language features with little explanation of effect' (Band 1)

Why is "Making a judgement with no support — a bare opinion or fence-sit such as 'there are arguments on both sides'" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Reaching a defended verdict is hard, so students either assert a view without reasons or hedge to avoid committing, mistaking neutrality for balance. How to avoid it: Every verdict needs reasons drawn from the evidence you built. Commit to a degree ('the claim holds only in the sense that...'), backed by 'because...'. In Paper 1, 'arguments on both sides' is treated as an evasion of AO2; weigh the sides and decide. Source: 8021 Paper 1 structure guide — 'there are arguments on both sides ... is not a conclusion — it is an evasion of AO2 and AO3'

Why is "Misreading or ignoring the command word, so the whole answer is on the wrong rung" a common mistake in Analysis vs. evaluation?

Why it happens: Students skim the question for the topic and start writing, never pausing to identify whether description, analysis or evaluation is being demanded. How to avoid it: Before writing, circle the command word and translate it: Analyse/Explain -> how/why; Evaluate/Assess/To what extent -> how good (judgement); Identify/Summarise -> retrieve/condense. A right-rung answer done plainly beats a wrong-rung answer done brilliantly. Source: 8021 Examiner Reports — 'misreading the command word ... will systematically lose marks'

Cambridge International A Levels English General Paper (8021)

Analysis vs. evaluation

0% Complete

Detailed Study Notes

Detailed notes on Core Skills Toolkit for Cambridge International A Levels English General Paper, covering key concepts, explanations, examples, and exam-focused revision points.

Analysis vs Evaluation: The Skill That Decides Your Grade — Cambridge AS Level English General Paper 8021

The single most common reason able 8021 candidates lose marks is doing the wrong thinking move: DESCRIBING when they were asked to analyse, or ANALYSING when they were asked to evaluate. These three skills form a ladder — DESCRIBE (what it is) -> ANALYSE (how/why it works, what it shows) -> EVALUATE (a supported judgement of how good, effective or valid it is). AO2 covers both analysis AND evaluation, so this distinction runs through Paper 1 (analyse your examples, evaluate the claim, judge in the conclusion) and Paper 2 (Q6 analyse language; Q8 evaluate the argument). Learn to read the command word, climb out of mere description, and write each level well, and you unlock the upper bands.

At a glance

Three rungs of a ladder: DESCRIBE = what it is / what happened; ANALYSE = HOW or WHY it works, what it shows or means; EVALUATE = a supported JUDGEMENT of how good, effective or valid it is.
Description is the lowest rung and, on its own, caps you in the lower bands. Analysis and evaluation are where the marks live.
AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation) is 35% of Paper 1 and 40% of Paper 2 — the largest single objective in the comprehension paper.
The COMMAND WORD tells you which rung is required. 'Analyse' wants HOW/WHY; 'Evaluate' / 'Assess' want a JUDGEMENT (how good?). Doing the wrong one loses marks even if it is done well.
Analysis answers 'how does this work / what does this show?'. Evaluation answers 'how good / effective / convincing is it, and why?' — weighing strengths against weaknesses.
Evaluation needs CRITERIA: you cannot judge 'how good' without saying good BY WHAT STANDARD (effective? fair? well-supported? logically valid?).
Paper 2 splits the two cleanly: Q6 (4-8 marks) asks you to ANALYSE language features and their effect; Q8 (8-10 marks) asks you to EVALUATE the text's argument or language with a supported judgement.
In a Paper 1 essay you do BOTH: analyse each example (how it proves your point) through the body, then evaluate the proposition overall to reach a committed conclusion.

What you’ll learn

Mapped to the Cambridge International A Level 8021 syllabus (2025-2027).

Distinguish description, analysis and evaluation precisely, and recognise which the question's command word demands (AO2).
Climb the ladder from description to analysis by explaining the HOW and WHY behind a feature or example, not just naming it (AO2).
Climb from analysis to evaluation by adding a supported judgement against a clear criterion of effectiveness, validity or value (AO2).
Apply the correct skill in the correct place: analyse in Paper 2 Q6 and within Paper 1 body paragraphs; evaluate in Paper 2 Q8 and in the Paper 1 conclusion (AO2 + AO3).
Write analysis and evaluation in clear, controlled English using the appropriate signalling stems for each (AO3).
Diagnose and correct the two costliest errors — describing when analysis is required, and analysing when evaluation is required (AO2).

The three-rung ladder: describe -> analyse -> evaluate

These are not three styles you can pick freely — they are a hierarchy, and each rung is worth more than the one below it.

Almost every mark you lose in 8021 that is not a simple grammar slip comes from operating on the wrong rung of one ladder. Master the ladder and you control your own grade.

Rung 1 — DESCRIBE (what it is / what happened). Description states the facts. It tells the reader what something is, what it looks like, or what happened. It is necessary — you cannot analyse a feature you have not first identified — but on its own it sits in the lower bands, because anyone who can read can describe.

Rung 2 — ANALYSE (how / why it works, what it shows). Analysis examines something in detail to show its meaning or significance. It answers 'how does this work?' and 'why does this matter / what does this show?'. It explains the mechanism — the chain of cause and effect that connects a feature to its result, or an example to the point it proves.

Rung 3 — EVALUATE (a supported judgement of how good / effective / valid). Evaluation goes one step further: it makes a judgement about quality, effectiveness, validity or value, and supports that judgement. It answers 'how good / effective / convincing is this — and why?' by weighing strengths against weaknesses against a stated standard.

Take one tiny example — a writer's use of a short, blunt sentence: 'It must stop.'

Describe: 'The writer uses a short, three-word sentence.' (True, but it earns almost nothing.)
Analyse: 'The abruptness of the three-word sentence mimics the finality of a command, jolting the reader after several long, flowing sentences and forcing the demand to land with sudden force.' (Now we have HOW and WHY — AO2.)
Evaluate: 'This is highly effective: coming after a paragraph of measured reasoning, the curt sentence converts argument into urgency, so the reader feels compelled rather than merely informed — though if every sentence were this blunt the effect would be lost, which is why its rarity is precisely what makes it work.' (A supported JUDGEMENT, with a criterion — effectiveness — and a weighed limitation.)

Describe = what it is / what happened (lower bands on its own).
Analyse = HOW / WHY it works, what it shows or means (AO2).
Evaluate = a supported JUDGEMENT of how good / effective / valid (top of AO2).
Each rung is worth more than the one below; you must climb past description.
Same feature, three levels: identify it -> explain its effect -> judge how effective it is.

What analysis actually looks like — the 'how' and 'why' move

Analysis explains the mechanism: it connects a feature or example to its effect or to the point it proves through a chain of reasoning.

Analysis is the act of explaining how something works or why it matters. The test for whether you are analysing is simple: have you explained a mechanism — a chain that links one thing to another — or have you only stated that the thing exists?

In Paper 2 Section B (Q6 — analyse language), analysis means moving from QUOTE -> TECHNIQUE -> EFFECT. The marks are in the effect:

Describe / identify: 'The writer uses the metaphor "a tidal wave of waste".'
Analyse: 'The metaphor "a tidal wave of waste" likens rubbish to an unstoppable natural disaster, so the reader pictures the problem as overwhelming and beyond individual control — this magnifies the sense of crisis and pressures the reader to accept that urgent collective action is the only response.'

Notice the analytical engine: it says what the image compares, then how that comparison reshapes the reader's understanding, then why the writer wanted that. That is HOW and WHY.

In Paper 1 (analysing your example), analysis means explaining how the example proves your point — the 'so what?' step:

Describe: 'Switzerland holds frequent referendums.'
Analyse: 'Because Swiss citizens vote directly on the issues, outcomes reflect the public's actual preferences rather than a political class's priorities, which shows that a more direct system can make participation more equal.'

Reliable analysis stems (they force the 'how/why'):

'This works by...' / 'The mechanism here is...'
'This suggests / implies / reveals that...'
'The effect of this is to make the reader...'
'This matters because...' / 'What this shows is...'

The deeper your chain of because... so... which means..., the stronger the analysis. Analysis is reasoning, not labelling.

Analysis explains a MECHANISM — a 'because... so... which means...' chain.
Paper 2 Q6: QUOTE -> name the TECHNIQUE -> explain the EFFECT on the reader (effect = the marks).
Paper 1: explain HOW the example proves the point ('so what does this show?').
Stems: 'this works by...', 'this suggests...', 'the effect is to...', 'this matters because...'.
Labelling a feature is description; explaining its effect is analysis.

What evaluation actually looks like — judgement plus criteria

Evaluation makes a supported judgement about quality. Its two essential ingredients are a verdict and a criterion — the standard you are judging against.

Evaluation answers 'how good / effective / valid / convincing is this?'. It is not simply more analysis — it adds a judgement and supports it. Two ingredients are non-negotiable:

1. A judgement (a verdict). You must commit to a view: this argument is largely convincing; this evidence is weak; this technique is highly effective; this claim is only partly valid. A judgement uses evaluative language — effective, convincing, persuasive, flawed, weak, valid, justified, exaggerated.

2. A criterion (the standard you judge against). You cannot say 'how good' without answering 'good by what measure?'. Common criteria in 8021:

Effectiveness — does it achieve its purpose on the reader?
Validity / logic — does the conclusion actually follow from the evidence?
Reliability of evidence — is the support relevant, sufficient, representative, and free of bias?
Balance — does it fairly handle the other side, or set up a straw man?

Evaluation almost always weighs — it acknowledges a strength AND a limitation, then decides which dominates. A one-sided list of strengths is not evaluation; balanced weighing is.

In Paper 2 Section B (Q8 — evaluate the argument):

Analyse only: 'The writer uses emotive language and statistics to argue that fast fashion harms the planet.'
Evaluate: 'The argument is persuasive but not wholly convincing: the statistics on water use give it real authority and make the scale feel concrete, yet the writer relies heavily on emotive language ("a tidal wave of waste") and never acknowledges the industry's economic benefits, so the case is rhetorically strong but one-sided — effective for a sympathetic reader, weaker as balanced reasoning.' (Verdict + criteria of authority and balance + weighed limitation.)

In Paper 1 (the conclusion / 'to what extent' / 'assess' questions):

Sit on the fence (not evaluation): 'There are good arguments on both sides.'
Evaluate: 'On balance, direct democracy is the fairest form of government only in the narrow sense of equal participation; judged by whether it produces well-informed, minority-protecting decisions, it falls short — so the claim holds for fairness of process but not of outcome.' (A committed verdict, against a criterion, weighing both senses of 'fair'.)

Reliable evaluation stems:

'This is effective / convincing because...'
'The strength of this is..., but the weakness is...'
'This is only partly valid, since...'
'On balance, the more persuasive view is..., because...'
'Judged by [criterion], this succeeds / fails because...'

Evaluation = JUDGEMENT (a verdict) + CRITERION (the standard) + SUPPORT.
Criteria in 8021: effectiveness, validity/logic, reliability of evidence, balance.
Evaluation WEIGHS strength against weakness, then decides which dominates.
Paper 2 Q8: judge how effective/convincing the argument or language is, with textual support.
Paper 1 conclusion: a committed, criterion-based verdict — never 'arguments on both sides'.
Stems: 'effective because...', 'the strength is... but the weakness is...', 'on balance...'.

Reading the command word: which rung does the question want?

The command word is an instruction, not decoration. It tells you whether to analyse, evaluate, or do both — and answering the wrong one loses marks even when done well.

Every mark loss from 'doing the wrong thinking' is preventable, because the question always tells you which rung it wants. Train yourself to circle the command word before you write a single sentence.

Words that demand ANALYSIS (how / why):

Analyse — examine in detail to show meaning and effect; explain HOW language or an example works. (Paper 2 Q6 core.)
Explain — make clear why or how; set out reasons or implications.
Examine / Explore — investigate the workings or implications in detail.

Words that demand EVALUATION (a judgement of how good):

Evaluate — make a supported judgement about quality, effectiveness or validity, weighing strengths and weaknesses. (Paper 2 Q8 core.)
Assess — make an informed judgement, weighing up elements.
To what extent / How far do you agree — reach a judgement about degree, not a yes/no. (Paper 1 essay core.)
Justify — support a position with reasoning (Paper 2 Q4 persuasive).

Words that may need only DESCRIPTION (or analysis-lite):

Identify / State / Give / Name — locate and record; no explanation. (Paper 2 short retrieval.)
Describe — set out the main features; more than identify, but below analysis.
Summarise — select and condense the main points; do not add opinion or judgement.

The discipline: circle the command word, name the rung, then write to that rung. If it says 'analyse', deliver mechanism (how/why). If it says 'evaluate' or 'assess' or 'to what extent', deliver a supported judgement. A perfect analysis of language scores poorly on an 'evaluate' question, and a strong opinion scores poorly on an 'analyse' question — not because the writing is bad, but because it is on the wrong rung.

Analyse / Explain / Examine -> give HOW and WHY (mechanism).
Evaluate / Assess / To what extent / How far / Justify -> give a supported JUDGEMENT.
Identify / State / Give / Summarise -> retrieve or condense; do not over-write.
Circle the command word first, name the rung, then write to it.
Right rung done plainly beats wrong rung done beautifully.

Where each rung is needed: Paper 1 vs Paper 2

The two papers place analysis and evaluation in specific, predictable slots. Knowing where each belongs lets you spend your effort on the rung that earns the marks.

Because AO2 carries 35% in Paper 1 and 40% in Paper 2, knowing where each skill is rewarded is a direct route to marks.

Paper 2 — the clearest split. Section B separates the rungs almost surgically:

Q5 (vocabulary in context, 2-4 marks) — explain contextual meaning. Mostly interpretation, edging into light analysis.
Q6 (language analysis, 4-8 marks) — pure ANALYSE. Quote a feature, name the technique, explain its EFFECT on the reader. Identification alone is Band 1; effect-analysis reaches Band 3.
Q7 (inference, 4-6 marks) — read between the lines; analytical, explaining implied meaning.
Q8 (evaluation, 8-10 marks) — pure EVALUATE. Judge how effective / convincing the text's argument or language is, weighing strengths against weaknesses, supported by the text.

The classic Paper 2 disaster is treating Q8 like Q6 — listing language features again instead of judging the argument. Q6 asks 'how does it work?'; Q8 asks 'how good is it?'. Different rung, different answer.

Paper 1 — the two rungs work together in one essay.

Inside each body paragraph: ANALYSE. After your named example, explain how it proves the point (the 'so what?'). Description of the example sits in Band 2; analysed examples reach Band 4-5.
In the conclusion (and throughout an 'assess' / 'to what extent' answer): EVALUATE. Reach a committed, criterion-based judgement on the proposition. 'There are arguments on both sides' is an evasion of AO2; a weighed verdict is the evaluation the top band requires.

A complete Paper 1 essay therefore analyses to build the case and evaluates to decide it. A student who only analyses never answers 'to what extent'; a student who only asserts a verdict never proves it. You need both rungs, in their proper places.

One crucial Paper 2 reminder: all your analysis and evaluation in Paper 2 must come from THE TEXT, not your own knowledge. Paper 1 argues from what you know; Paper 2 works only from the insert. The thinking skill is the same; the source is opposite.

Paper 2 Q6 = ANALYSE (effect of language); Q8 = EVALUATE (judge the argument) — never confuse them.
Paper 2 Q8 disaster: re-listing features instead of judging effectiveness.
Paper 1 body paragraphs = ANALYSE each example (the 'so what?').
Paper 1 conclusion / 'to what extent' / 'assess' = EVALUATE with a committed verdict.
A full Paper 1 essay analyses to build the case and evaluates to decide it.
Paper 2: analyse and evaluate the TEXT only — never import outside knowledge.

Quick recap

Three rungs: DESCRIBE (what it is) -> ANALYSE (how/why it works, what it shows) -> EVALUATE (a supported judgement of how good/effective/valid).
Description on its own caps you in the lower bands; analysis and evaluation are where AO2 marks live (35% Paper 1, 40% Paper 2).
The COMMAND WORD chooses the rung: Analyse/Explain -> mechanism; Evaluate/Assess/To what extent -> supported judgement; Identify/Summarise -> retrieve/condense.
Analysis explains a MECHANISM ('because... so... which means...'); use stems like 'this works by...', 'this suggests...', 'the effect is to...'.
Evaluation needs a JUDGEMENT and a CRITERION (effectiveness, validity, reliability of evidence, balance) and weighs strength against weakness.
Paper 2 splits them: Q6 = ANALYSE language; Q8 = EVALUATE the argument. Paper 1 uses both: analyse examples in the body, evaluate the proposition in the conclusion.
Doing the wrong rung loses marks even when done well — always circle the command word and answer to its rung.

Memorise this

Verbatim phrases and definitions Cambridge mark schemes credit.

Describe = 'what it is'; Analyse = 'how / why it works'; Evaluate = 'how good / effective / valid'.
Analysis stems: 'this works by...', 'the mechanism is...', 'this suggests / implies / reveals...', 'the effect of this is to...'.
Analysis 'so what?' stems: 'this matters because...', 'what this shows is...', 'which means that...'.
Evaluation stems: 'this is effective / convincing because...', 'the strength is..., but the weakness is...'.
Evaluation verdict stems: 'on balance, the more persuasive view is...', 'this is only partly valid, since...'.
Evaluation criterion stems: 'judged by [effectiveness / validity / reliability / balance], this succeeds / fails because...'.
Command words for ANALYSE: Analyse, Explain, Examine, Explore (give HOW/WHY).
Command words for EVALUATE: Evaluate, Assess, To what extent, How far, Justify (give a supported JUDGEMENT).
Paper 2: Q6 ANALYSE (effect of language) vs Q8 EVALUATE (judge the argument) — different rungs.
Evaluation = judgement + criterion + support; never 'there are arguments on both sides'.

How it’s examined

The analysis-vs-evaluation distinction is examined under AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation) across BOTH papers — the largest single objective in Paper 2 (40%) and the second-largest in Paper 1 (35%). In Paper 1 (the Essay, 30 marks) you must ANALYSE each example you use (explain how it supports your point — described examples are capped in Band 2) and then EVALUATE the proposition to reach a committed, criterion-based conclusion; stems such as 'To what extent...', 'How far do you agree...' and 'Assess the view that...' explicitly demand a judgement of degree, not a yes/no, and the band descriptors reserve Band 5 for responses that weigh counterargument and 'reach a clear, supported conclusion'. In Paper 2 (Comprehension, 50 marks) the two rungs are tested in separate questions: Q6 (4-8 marks) is an ANALYSE question — quote a language feature, name the technique, and explain its effect on the reader (identification alone scores Band 1); Q8 (8-10 marks) is an EVALUATE question — make a supported judgement about the effectiveness or validity of the text's argument or language, weighing strengths and weaknesses with textual evidence. The single most common AO2 mark-loss in Paper 2 is answering Q8 as if it were Q6 (re-listing features instead of judging them). Remember the paper boundary: in Paper 2 you analyse and evaluate ONLY the unseen text, importing no outside knowledge, whereas in Paper 1 you argue from your own knowledge.

Sources: Cambridge International AS Level English General Paper 8021 syllabus (for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027); 8021 Paper 1 (Essay) and Paper 2 (Comprehension) specimen papers and mark schemes / band descriptors; 8021 / 8004 Examiner Reports — AO2 analysis vs evaluation; command-word misreading and descriptive responses. Last reviewed 2026-06-23.

Take this whole topic with you

Step-by-step worked examples — Analysis vs. evaluation

Step-by-step solutions to past-paper-style questions on analysis vs. evaluation, written exactly the way a tutor would explain them at the board.

1Getting started: spotting whether the question wants analysis or evaluation
Getting started• AO2, command word, Paper 1, Paper 2
Question
You are faced with two questions: (a) 'Analyse how the writer uses language to make the threat of plastic pollution feel urgent.' and (b) 'Evaluate how convincing the writer's argument about plastic pollution is.' Show how to tell which thinking rung each one demands BEFORE you start writing.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Circle the command word first — it is an instruction, not decoration. Question (a) says 'Analyse'; question (b) says 'Evaluate'. These point to different rungs of the ladder, so they need different answers even though the topic is identical.
2. Step 2
  Decode 'Analyse' = HOW / WHY. It asks you to examine the language in detail and explain the MECHANISM — how a word or image works on the reader and why it creates urgency. The deliverable is effect, not judgement. (This is the Paper 2 Q6 skill.)
3. Step 3
  Decode 'Evaluate' = HOW GOOD. It asks for a supported JUDGEMENT — how convincing is the argument, weighing its strengths against its weaknesses, against a criterion. The deliverable is a verdict with support. (This is the Paper 2 Q8 skill.)
4. Step 4
  State the rung out loud before writing: '(a) is an ANALYSE question -> I will give how/why effects. (b) is an EVALUATE question -> I will give a weighed judgement.' Naming the rung stops you from drifting into the wrong one.
5. Step 5
  Sanity-check the trap. Writing a brilliant judgement on (a) wastes marks, because (a) does not want a judgement; re-listing language features on (b) wastes marks, because (b) wants a verdict on the argument, not another feature list. Right rung beats good writing on the wrong rung.
Answer
Circle the command word, then translate it: 'Analyse' = explain HOW/WHY (mechanism, effect); 'Evaluate'/'Assess' = make a supported JUDGEMENT (how good, weighing strengths and weaknesses). Name the rung before you write, so you answer the question actually asked.
Examiner tip
AO2 (35% Paper 1, 40% Paper 2) is lost most often not because students cannot analyse or evaluate, but because they do the wrong one. Examiner reports note that 'misreading the command word' systematically loses marks — for instance writing analysis when evaluation is required. Diagnosing the rung first is the cheapest mark-saving habit in the qualification.
2Getting started: moving from description up to analysis
Getting started• AO2, analysis, Paper 2 Q6, mechanism
Question
A student writes: 'The writer uses the metaphor a tidal wave of waste.' That is description. Show, step by step, how to lift it into analysis for a Paper 2 Q6-style analyse the language task.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Diagnose the rung. The sentence QUOTES and NAMES the technique (metaphor) but stops there. Identification alone is description — Band 1 in Section B. The marks are in the missing step: the effect.
2. Step 2
  Apply the 'how does it work?' test. Ask: what does this metaphor compare, and what does that comparison DO to the reader? A tidal wave is a vast, unstoppable natural force — so the metaphor reframes rubbish as a disaster beyond anyone's control.
3. Step 3
  Explain the mechanism, link by link. 'By likening waste to a tidal wave, the writer makes the problem feel overwhelming and inevitable, so the reader is pushed to see ordinary recycling as hopelessly inadequate.' Now there is a 'because... so...' chain — that is analysis.
4. Step 4
  Add the WHY (writer's purpose). 'This is designed to create alarm and prepare the reader to accept that only urgent, large-scale action will do.' Connecting effect to purpose deepens the analysis from how to why.
5. Step 5
  Use an analysis stem to force the move next time: 'this works by...', 'this suggests...', 'the effect of this is to...'. The stem makes you write the mechanism rather than stopping at the label.
Answer
Keep the quote and the technique, but ADD the effect: explain what the metaphor compares, how that reshapes the reader's view (overwhelming, inevitable), and why the writer wants that (to create alarm). Description ('the writer uses a metaphor') becomes analysis once you supply the how and why.
Examiner tip
Section B band descriptors reserve Band 1 for 'superficial identification of language features with little explanation of effect' and require 'perceptive analysis ... clear explanation of effect on the reader' for Band 3. The discriminating move is always the effect, not the spotting. Train the habit: every named feature must be followed by 'this works by...'.
3Building confidence: moving from analysis up to evaluation
Building confidence• AO2, evaluation, Paper 2 Q8, judgement
Question
A student has analysed well: 'The writer uses alarming statistics and emotive imagery to argue that fast fashion is destroying the planet.' For a Paper 2 Q8-style 'evaluate the argument' task, show how to climb from this analysis to evaluation.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Recognise that good analysis is not yet evaluation. The sentence explains HOW the writer persuades (statistics + imagery), but Q8 asks HOW GOOD / convincing the argument is. A judgement is still missing.
2. Step 2
  Add a verdict. Commit to a view using evaluative language: 'The argument is persuasive but not wholly convincing.' That is the judgement Q8 demands — not a feeling, but a stated position.
3. Step 3
  Anchor the verdict to a criterion. Judge 'good by what standard?'. Here, two criteria: authority of evidence and balance. 'The statistics give it real authority and make the scale concrete (a strength), but the writer never acknowledges the industry's economic benefits (a weakness in balance).'
4. Step 4
  Weigh and decide. Evaluation holds strength against weakness and says which dominates: 'so the case is rhetorically powerful yet one-sided — effective for a sympathetic reader, weaker as genuinely balanced reasoning.' The weighing is what makes it evaluation, not a list.
5. Step 5
  Keep it text-anchored (Paper 2). Every judgement must rest on the text, not your own views on fashion. Quote or refer to the actual evidence and the actual gap in the argument — Paper 2 evaluates the TEXT only.
Answer
Add a VERDICT ('persuasive but not wholly convincing'), tie it to CRITERIA (authority of evidence; balance), then WEIGH strength against weakness and decide which dominates. Analysis says how the argument works; evaluation judges how good it is — and supports that judgement from the text.
Examiner tip
Q8 band descriptors demand 'evaluation of strengths and weaknesses ... well-reasoned and substantiated' and note that 'a balanced evaluation considering both strengths and limitations scores more highly than a one-sided list of features'. The leap from analysis to evaluation is precisely a verdict plus a criterion plus weighing — without those three, even excellent analysis stays below the top band on an evaluate question.
4Building confidence: writing analysis well — chaining the 'how/why'
Building confidence• AO2, analysis, Paper 1, mechanism
Question
In a Paper 1 essay you have written: 'Switzerland holds frequent referendums, which is direct democracy.' Show how to write the ANALYSIS well — turning this into a developed 'how/why' chain that proves a point about fairness.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Spot that this is still description. It states what Switzerland does and names it, but never explains what it SHOWS about the question (here, whether direct democracy is fairer). The 'so what?' is missing.
2. Step 2
  Ask the 'so what?' question. So what does direct voting DO? It lets citizens decide issues themselves, without an elected intermediary substituting its own judgement. That is the first link in the mechanism.
3. Step 3
  Chain the next link with 'so... which means...'. 'Because citizens vote directly, outcomes reflect the public's actual preferences rather than a political class's priorities, which means power is harder to capture by party or lobby interests.' Each clause advances the reasoning.
4. Step 4
  Land the link on the question's terms. 'This makes participation more equal — a real sense in which direct democracy can be called fairer.' Analysis should connect the mechanism back to what the essay is arguing.
5. Step 5
  Check the balance of words. Strong analysis spends MORE words on the chain than on naming the example. If the example sentence is longer than the explanation, you are still describing.
Answer
Run a chain: example -> 'so what?' (citizens decide directly) -> 'which means' (outcomes reflect real preferences, harder to capture) -> link to the question ('a sense in which it is fairer'). Good analysis is a 'because... so... which means...' chain that out-words the example it explains.
Examiner tip
Paper 1 AO2 rewards examples 'used effectively to support and develop the argument' — 'effectively' means analysed. Examiner reports state that 'largely descriptive responses cannot access the higher bands'. A multi-link mechanism, ending on the question's wording, is what converts a named example into developed analysis.
5Stretch: writing evaluation well — judgement, criteria and weighing
Stretch• AO2, evaluation, Paper 1 conclusion, criteria, A*
Question
For the Paper 1 question 'To what extent is direct democracy the fairest form of government?', a student concludes: 'In conclusion, there are good arguments on both sides.' Show how to write a genuine EVALUATION instead.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Diagnose the evasion. 'Arguments on both sides' is not a judgement — it refuses to answer 'to what extent'. The command word demands a verdict about DEGREE, and this dodges it. Examiners treat it as an evasion of AO2.
2. Step 2
  Choose the criterion that makes the judgement precise. 'Fairest' is ambiguous, so split it: fairness of PROCESS (equal participation) vs fairness of OUTCOME (well-informed, minority-protecting decisions). Naming the criteria turns opinion into reasoned judgement.
3. Step 3
  Reach a verdict against each criterion, citing the evidence built earlier. 'Judged by process, direct democracy is the fairest — Switzerland's referendums make every vote count equally; judged by outcome, it falls short — the 2016 UK referendum compressed a complex question into a binary that disregarded a vulnerable minority.'
4. Step 4
  Weigh and commit to a degree. 'On balance, the claim holds for fairness of process but not of outcome — so direct democracy is the fairest only in a narrow, procedural sense.' That is a committed, nuanced answer to 'to what extent'.
5. Step 5
  Use evaluation stems to signal the judgement: 'on balance...', 'the claim holds only in the sense that...', 'judged by [criterion]...'. These make the verdict unmistakable to the examiner.
Answer
Replace 'both sides' with a verdict against CRITERIA: split 'fairest' into process vs outcome, judge each (fair in process via Switzerland; unfair in outcome via the 2016 referendum), weigh them, and commit to a degree ('fairest only in a narrow, procedural sense'). That is evaluation — a supported, criterion-based judgement, not a fence-sit.
Examiner tip
Paper 1 Band 5 requires 'a clear, supported conclusion'; the structure guide states plainly that 'there are arguments on both sides' is 'not a conclusion — it is an evasion of AO2 and AO3'. A criterion-led verdict that names the degree to which the claim holds is exactly the evaluative move the top band rewards.
6Stretch: using analysis AND evaluation in one answer
Stretch• AO2, analysis, evaluation, Paper 2 Q8, A*
Question
A Paper 2 Q8-style task asks: 'Evaluate how effectively the writer persuades the reader that fast fashion must be banned.' Show how to combine analysis (how it works) and evaluation (how good it is) within a single, well-built response.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  See that 'evaluate ... how effectively' stacks both rungs. You must ANALYSE the persuasive techniques (how they work) AND EVALUATE their success (how good they are). Doing only one leaves marks on the table.
2. Step 2
  Lead with analysis as the foundation. 'The writer opens with the statistic that the industry uses 93 billion cubic metres of water a year, which lends the claim authority and makes the scale feel concrete and undeniable.' (How the technique works — analysis.)
3. Step 3
  Pivot to evaluation with a judgement word. 'This is effective for an undecided reader because hard data resists easy dismissal — but its effectiveness is limited, because the writer never sources the figure, so a sceptical reader may distrust it.' (How good, with a criterion of reliability — evaluation.)
4. Step 4
  Weigh a second technique the same way. Analyse the emotive metaphor ('a tidal wave of waste') for how it creates alarm, then evaluate it: powerful for emotional impact, but weakening the case as balanced reasoning because it substitutes feeling for proof.
5. Step 5
  Close with an overall weighed verdict. 'Overall the writer persuades effectively at the level of emotion and authority, but less so as rigorous argument, since the one-sided framing ignores the industry's economic role — so the piece convinces sympathetic readers more than sceptical ones.' Analysis built the evidence; evaluation delivered the judgement.
Answer
Analyse first (how each technique works on the reader), then evaluate (how effective it is, against criteria like reliability and balance), weigh technique by technique, and end with an overall verdict. When a question stacks both rungs ('evaluate how effectively...'), answer both: analysis is the evidence, evaluation is the conclusion drawn from it.
Examiner tip
Q8 sits at AO2/AO3 and rewards judgement that is 'well-reasoned and substantiated'. The strongest answers do not choose between analysis and evaluation — they use analysis to earn the right to evaluate, so each judgement rests on a demonstrated mechanism. This is also the shape of a top Paper 1 essay: analyse to build the case, evaluate to decide it.

Model Answers — Analysis vs. evaluation

High-scoring sample answers for analysis vs. evaluation on the Cambridge IGCSE paper, with examiner-style notes mapping each response to the mark scheme and assessment objectives.

Question 1
8021 skill exemplar
[EASY] Rewrite this DESCRIPTION as ANALYSIS (Paper 2 Q6 style — analyse the writer's language): The writer uses the word 'swarming' to describe the tourists.
Model answer
Original (DESCRIBE — what it is): 'The writer uses the word "swarming" to describe the tourists.' This only identifies the word; it explains no effect, so it sits in Band 1.

Rewritten (ANALYSE — how / why it works): The writer's choice of 'swarming' to describe the tourists likens them to insects, so the reader pictures a faceless, uncontrollable mass rather than individual visitors. (quote + what it compares) This works by stripping the tourists of humanity and suggesting infestation, which makes their presence feel intrusive and even threatening. (how it reshapes the reader's view) The effect is to position the reader to resent the crowds and to accept the writer's underlying claim that the resort has been overwhelmed — a single verb doing the persuasive work of a whole sentence. (why the writer chose it)
Why this scores
A model EASY climb from describe to analyse. The rewrite keeps the quoted word but adds the missing rung: what 'swarming' compares the tourists to (insects), how that reshapes the reader's response (resentment, threat), and why the writer wants it (to support the 'overwhelmed' claim). Section B reserves Band 3 for 'clear explanation of effect on the reader' — exactly the how/why supplied here.
Question 2
8021 skill exemplar
[EASY] Rewrite this DESCRIPTION as ANALYSIS (Paper 1 style — using an example to prove a point): 'Australia has compulsory voting and very high turnout.'
Model answer
Original (DESCRIBE — what happens): 'Australia has compulsory voting and very high turnout.' This states a fact but never explains what it SHOWS about the question, so it is description.

Rewritten (ANALYSE — how / why it matters): Australia's compulsory voting drives turnout consistently well over 90 per cent. (the named example) This matters because near-universal participation means election results reflect the whole electorate rather than only the most motivated minority, which strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the outcome. (the 'so what?' mechanism) What this shows is that turnout — and therefore the breadth of consent a government can claim — is not fixed but can be shaped by the rules of the system itself, so the design of voting genuinely affects how representative a democracy is. (link to the wider point)
Why this scores
A model EASY describe-to-analyse for Paper 1. The fact is unchanged, but the rewrite adds the 'so what?': high turnout -> results reflect the whole electorate -> stronger legitimacy -> system design shapes representativeness. Paper 1 AO2 credits examples 'used effectively', meaning analysed; the bare fact would sit in Band 2, the analysed version reaches the higher bands.
Question 3
8021 skill exemplar
[MEDIUM] Take this ANALYTICAL comment and add EVALUATION — a supported judgement (Paper 2 Q8 style): The writer uses a rhetorical question, 'Can we really call this progress?', which invites the reader to share their doubt.
Model answer
Given (ANALYSE — how it works): The writer uses a rhetorical question, 'Can we really call this progress?', which invites the reader to supply the obvious negative answer themselves and so feel they reached the doubt independently.

Added (EVALUATE — how good it is, with a criterion and weighing): This is an effective technique because a reader who reaches a conclusion 'for themselves' is more committed to it than one who is simply told — so the rhetorical question quietly recruits the reader to the writer's side. (verdict + criterion: effectiveness) Its effectiveness is limited, however, by the fact that it assumes the answer rather than proving it: a sceptical reader who does NOT already doubt 'progress' is given no evidence, only a leading question, so the device persuades the already-sympathetic far more than the undecided. (weighed limitation: it substitutes assumption for proof) On balance, then, it is rhetorically clever but argumentatively thin — strong as persuasion, weak as reasoning. (committed, weighed judgement)
Why this scores
A model MEDIUM analyse-to-evaluate. The given sentence already explains HOW the rhetorical question works; the addition supplies the EVALUATE rung — a verdict (effective), a criterion (does it persuade? does it prove?), a weighed limitation (it assumes rather than proves), and a final balanced judgement. Q8 rewards exactly this 'strengths and weaknesses ... well-reasoned and substantiated' move.
Question 4
8021 skill exemplar
[MEDIUM] Take this ANALYTICAL comment and add EVALUATION — a supported judgement (Paper 2 Q8 style): 'The writer supports the claim that screen time harms children by quoting a single parent who says her son became withdrawn.'
Model answer
Given (ANALYSE — how it works): The writer supports the claim that screen time harms children by quoting a single parent who describes her son becoming withdrawn, which makes the issue feel concrete and emotionally immediate to the reader.

Added (EVALUATE — how good it is, with a criterion and weighing): Judged by its emotional pull, the anecdote is effective: a named, human story is more vivid and memorable than an abstract claim, and it gives the argument a relatable face. (verdict + criterion: emotional effectiveness) Judged by reliability of evidence, however, it is weak: one parent's experience is a single, unrepresentative case that cannot establish a general harm, and the writer offers no wider study to show the pattern holds beyond this one child. (weighed limitation: criterion of reliability / representativeness) The strength of the writing, in other words, is also the weakness of the proof — so the argument convinces emotionally but falls short of demonstrating the broad claim it makes. (committed, weighed judgement)
Why this scores
A model MEDIUM analyse-to-evaluate focused on evidence quality. The judgement is anchored to two explicit criteria — emotional effectiveness vs reliability/representativeness of evidence — and the weighing shows that the same feature is a strength on one criterion and a weakness on another. Distinguishing the criteria is what makes the evaluation supported rather than a bare opinion.
Question 5
8021 skill exemplar
[HARD] Given this point, write THREE versions — DESCRIBE, ANALYSE, EVALUATE — and label each, for the claim 'China uses extensive surveillance, including a developing social-credit system.'
Model answer
(1) DESCRIBE — what it is. China operates extensive surveillance of its citizens, including a developing social-credit system that monitors and scores everyday behaviour on a vast scale. (This states the fact; it explains nothing and judges nothing. On its own it is Band 2 in Paper 1, Band 1 in Paper 2.)

(2) ANALYSE — how / why it works, what it shows. Because the social-credit system links a citizen's everyday conduct to tangible rewards and penalties, it works by encouraging people to police their own behaviour in anticipation of being watched, so control is achieved not only through direct punishment but through self-restraint. What this shows is that mass surveillance can shape a population's behaviour pre-emptively, which is precisely why it raises the liberty-versus-security question so sharply. (Now there is a 'because... so... which means...' mechanism — this is AO2 analysis.)

(3) EVALUATE — a supported judgement of how good / valid / justified it is. Judged against the criterion of security, such surveillance has real strengths: its defenders argue it can deter crime, reduce fraud and maintain order on a scale conventional policing cannot match. Judged against the criterion of liberty and accountability, however, it is deeply troubling: powers introduced for safety can harden into permanent, near-total monitoring that suppresses legitimate dissent, and the citizen has little recourse against a system that is neither transparent nor reviewable. On balance, the gain in order does not justify the loss of freedom and accountability, because a state that can watch everything can also silence anything — so the system is effective as control but illegitimate as governance. (A committed verdict, two named criteria, weighed both ways — this is AO2 evaluation.)
Why this scores
A model HARD contrast of all three rungs on a single fact. Version 1 only states; version 2 adds a mechanism (rewards/penalties -> self-policing -> pre-emptive control); version 3 adds a weighed, criterion-based verdict (security vs liberty/accountability) and commits to a judgement. Laying the three side by side makes the hierarchy visible — and shows why description alone, however accurate, cannot reach the upper bands.
Question 6
8021 skill exemplar
[HARD] Given this language feature, write THREE versions — DESCRIBE, ANALYSE, EVALUATE — and label each, for: the writer ends a paragraph of long, complex sentences with the abrupt sentence 'We have run out of time.'
Model answer
(1) DESCRIBE — what it is. After several long, complex sentences, the writer ends the paragraph with a short, blunt sentence: 'We have run out of time.' (Identifies the feature only — Band 1 in Section B.)

(2) ANALYSE — how / why it works. The abruptness of this short sentence, falling immediately after a run of long ones, creates a jolt of finality: the sudden change of rhythm makes the statement land with the weight of a verdict, so the reader feels the urgency physically in the pace of the prose rather than merely reading about it. The brevity also mimics the very shortness of time the sentence describes, fusing form and meaning. (A how/why mechanism — AO2 analysis: contrast in sentence length -> jolt -> urgency; form mirrors content.)

(3) EVALUATE — how effective it is. This is a highly effective technique: by reserving the short sentence for the climactic idea, the writer ensures the reader's attention spikes exactly where it matters, converting an abstract warning into an emotional shock — its effectiveness depends precisely on its rarity, since a whole paragraph of blunt sentences would deaden the contrast and lose the impact. Set against the criterion of persuasive force, then, the device succeeds because of, not despite, its restraint; its only limitation is that it moves the reader more than it proves the point, so it strengthens the writing more than the argument. (A supported verdict, with a criterion of persuasive effectiveness and a weighed limitation — AO2 evaluation.)
Why this scores
A model HARD three-level contrast on a structural feature. The describe rung names the short sentence; the analyse rung explains the mechanism (rhythmic contrast -> jolt -> urgency, with form mirroring content); the evaluate rung judges effectiveness, ties it to a criterion (persuasive force, dependent on rarity), and weighs a limitation (emotional more than logical). This is the exact ladder Section B Q6 (analyse) and Q8 (evaluate) test in separate questions.

Key Definitions and Keywords — Analysis vs. evaluation

Definitions to memorise and the exact keywords mark schemes credit for analysis vs. evaluation answers — sharpened from recent examiner reports for the 2026 Cambridge IGCSE sitting.

Description
Examiner keyword
Stating what something is, what it looks like, or what happened, without explaining how it works or judging how good it is. The lowest rung; on its own it caps a response in the lower bands.
Example
'The writer uses a metaphor.' / 'Switzerland holds referendums.'
Analysis
Examiner keyword
Examining something in detail to show how or why it works, and what it means or shows — explaining the mechanism that links a feature or example to its effect or to the point it proves.
Example
'The metaphor likens waste to a tidal wave, so the reader feels the problem is overwhelming and beyond control.'
Evaluation
Examiner keyword
Making a supported judgement about how good, effective, valid or convincing something is, weighing its strengths against its weaknesses against a clear criterion.
Example
'The argument is persuasive but not wholly convincing, because the evidence is vivid yet one-sided.'
AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation)
Examiner keyword
The 8021 assessment objective covering BOTH analysis and evaluation. It is 35% of Paper 1 and 40% of Paper 2 — the largest single objective in the comprehension paper.
Command word
Examiner keyword
The instruction word in a question (e.g. Analyse, Evaluate, Assess, Describe, Summarise) that tells you which thinking rung is required. Misreading it loses marks even if the answer is well written.
Example
'Analyse' wants how/why; 'Evaluate' wants a supported judgement.
Judgement (verdict)
Examiner keyword
A committed evaluative position on quality or degree — that something is effective, convincing, weak, valid or only partly so. The essential ingredient of evaluation; an answer with no verdict is not evaluating.
Example
'On balance, the claim holds for fairness of process but not of outcome.'
Criterion
Examiner keyword
The standard or measure against which a judgement is made — 'good by what measure?'. Common 8021 criteria: effectiveness, validity/logic, reliability of evidence, and balance.
Example
'Judged by reliability of evidence, the single anecdote is weak.'
Significance
What an example or feature SHOWS or MEANS for the question — the 'so what?'. Drawing out significance is the heart of analysis; merely reporting the example is description.
Example
'What this shows is that the design of voting shapes how representative a democracy is.'
Effectiveness / validity
Examiner keyword
Two common evaluation criteria: effectiveness asks whether something achieves its purpose on the reader; validity asks whether a conclusion logically follows from the evidence given.
'How/why' vs 'how good'
Examiner keyword
The quick test for the rung: if you are answering HOW or WHY something works, you are analysing; if you are answering HOW GOOD / effective / convincing it is, you are evaluating.
Supported (judgement)
Examiner keyword
A judgement backed by reasons and evidence rather than asserted. 'This is a good argument' is unsupported; 'this is convincing because the statistics are reliable and the counter-view is fairly handled' is supported.
Feature-spotting
Naming a technique or example without explaining its effect or judging it ('the writer uses repetition'). A description-only habit that scores Band 1 in Paper 2 Section B.

Common Mistakes and Misconceptions — Analysis vs. evaluation

The traps other students keep falling into on analysis vs. evaluation questions — taken from recent Cambridge IGCSE examiner reports and mark schemes — and how to avoid them.

✕Describing (stating what something is or what happened) when the question asks you to analyse or evaluate
8021 Examiner Reports — 'largely descriptive responses cannot access the higher bands'
Why it happens
Description feels like 'writing about' the topic and is easier than explanation, so under pressure students narrate the example or label the feature and stop there.
How to avoid it
After every fact or feature, force the next rung with a stem: 'this works by...' (analysis) or 'this is effective because...' (evaluation). If your sentence only says WHAT, add WHY or HOW GOOD. Description alone cannot reach the higher bands.
✕Analysing (explaining how language works) when the question asks you to evaluate — or evaluating when it asks you to analyse
8021 Examiner Reports — Section B: candidates answer the evaluation question by listing features rather than judging effectiveness
Why it happens
Students learn one skill, get comfortable with it, and apply it everywhere, ignoring the command word — most often treating Paper 2 Q8 (evaluate) like Q6 (analyse) and re-listing features.
How to avoid it
Circle the command word first and name the rung. If it says 'evaluate' or 'assess', deliver a verdict with criteria, not another feature list; if it says 'analyse', deliver mechanism, not an opinion. Q6 = how it works; Q8 = how good it is.
✕Evaluating with no criteria — asserting that something is 'good' or 'effective' without saying by what standard
8021 Q8 band descriptors — evaluation must be 'well-reasoned and substantiated', not asserted
Why it happens
Students know a judgement is wanted but treat it as a feeling to be stated, rather than a verdict that must be measured against something.
How to avoid it
Always name or imply the criterion: effective at WHAT (persuading? proving?); good BY WHAT MEASURE (reliability of evidence? logical validity? balance?). 'Convincing because the evidence is reliable but the counter-view is ignored' is supported; 'a good argument' is not.
✕Feature-spotting — naming techniques or examples ('the writer uses a simile') with no explanation of how or why they work
8021 Examiner Reports — 'superficial identification of language features with little explanation of effect' (Band 1)
Why it happens
Students are taught to identify techniques and assume that spotting them is the skill, so they produce a checklist of labels with no effect attached.
How to avoid it
Treat the named feature as the START, not the answer. Quote it, name it, then spend MORE words on the effect: 'this works by... so the reader...'. In Section B, identification alone is Band 1; explanation of effect is Band 3.
✕Making a judgement with no support — a bare opinion or fence-sit such as 'there are arguments on both sides'
8021 Paper 1 structure guide — 'there are arguments on both sides ... is not a conclusion — it is an evasion of AO2 and AO3'
Why it happens
Reaching a defended verdict is hard, so students either assert a view without reasons or hedge to avoid committing, mistaking neutrality for balance.
How to avoid it
Every verdict needs reasons drawn from the evidence you built. Commit to a degree ('the claim holds only in the sense that...'), backed by 'because...'. In Paper 1, 'arguments on both sides' is treated as an evasion of AO2; weigh the sides and decide.
✕Misreading or ignoring the command word, so the whole answer is on the wrong rung
8021 Examiner Reports — 'misreading the command word ... will systematically lose marks'
Why it happens
Students skim the question for the topic and start writing, never pausing to identify whether description, analysis or evaluation is being demanded.
How to avoid it
Before writing, circle the command word and translate it: Analyse/Explain -> how/why; Evaluate/Assess/To what extent -> how good (judgement); Identify/Summarise -> retrieve/condense. A right-rung answer done plainly beats a wrong-rung answer done brilliantly.

Analysis vs. evaluation

Detailed Study Notes

At a glance

What you’ll learn

Quick recap

Memorise this

How it’s examined

Take this whole topic with you

1Getting started: spotting whether the question wants analysis or evaluation

2Getting started: moving from description up to analysis

3Building confidence: moving from analysis up to evaluation

4Building confidence: writing analysis well — chaining the 'how/why'

5Stretch: writing evaluation well — judgement, criteria and weighing

6Stretch: using analysis AND evaluation in one answer

Description

Analysis

Evaluation

AO2 (Analysis and Evaluation)

Command word

Judgement (verdict)

Criterion

Significance

Effectiveness / validity

'How/why' vs 'how good'

Supported (judgement)

Feature-spotting

✕Describing (stating what something is or what happened) when the question asks you to analyse or evaluate

✕Analysing (explaining how language works) when the question asks you to evaluate — or evaluating when it asks you to analyse

✕Evaluating with no criteria — asserting that something is 'good' or 'effective' without saying by what standard

✕Feature-spotting — naming techniques or examples ('the writer uses a simile') with no explanation of how or why they work

✕Making a judgement with no support — a bare opinion or fence-sit such as 'there are arguments on both sides'

✕Misreading or ignoring the command word, so the whole answer is on the wrong rung