Why is "Submitting a topic instead of a question" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Students name what they want to write 'about' rather than a question to answer. How to avoid it: Phrase the title as a genuine, debatable question using an argumentative stem ('To what extent…?'). A topic gives the essay no position to argue. Source: 9239 Component 2 — devising the question

Why is "Choosing a question that is far too broad" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Big topics feel important and easy to find material on. How to avoid it: Narrow with the funnel (Topic → Theme → Issue → Question) until the scope fits ~2000 words. Depth beats breadth. Source: 9239 Component 2 — manageable scope

Why is "Choosing a one-sided question" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Students pick a question that matches the view they already hold. How to avoid it: Reframe to invite genuine opposition ('To what extent…?'). The essay must explore contrasting perspectives; a one-sided title blocks the top bands. Source: 9239 Component 2 — contrasting perspectives required

Why is "Choosing a purely local or factual question" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Local issues feel easier to research and relate to. How to avoid it: Ensure cross-border/cross-population significance. Widen a local interest into its debatable global form, using the local case only as evidence. Source: 9239 Component 2 — global significance

Why is "Leaving key terms undefined" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Students assume the meaning of words like 'harm' or 'success' is obvious. How to avoid it: Clarify the slippery terms in the introduction so the scope is fixed and the two perspectives debate the same question. This also earns AO3 credit. Source: 9239 Component 2 — clarifying key terms

Why is "Committing to the first question that comes to mind" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Students want to start researching quickly. How to avoid it: Draft three candidate questions and test each against the checklist (global, debatable, two-sided, answerable, clear terms) before choosing. The question is half the battle. Source: 9239 Component 2 — evaluating candidate questions

Why is "Letting a teacher choose or word the question" a common mistake in Choosing & Framing the Essay?

Why it happens: Students seek help and teachers want to assist. How to avoid it: Teacher support must stay general; the question and essay must be the candidate's own, authenticated work. Teachers may comment on whether a question 'works', not write it. Source: 9239 — academic integrity in submitted coursework

Cambridge International A Levels Global Perspectives & Research (9239)

Choosing & Framing the Essay

0% Complete

Detailed Study Notes

Detailed notes on Component 2: Essay for Cambridge International A Levels Global Perspectives & Research, covering key concepts, explanations, examples, and exam-focused revision points.

Choosing & Framing the Essay — Cambridge AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research 9239 (Component 2)

In the Component 2 essay, the question is half the battle — a weak question cannot produce a strong essay, no matter how well you write. This subtopic shows you how to choose a genuinely global, debatable issue and frame it as a precise, balanced essay title that invites two contrasting perspectives and can be answered in 1750–2000 words. You will learn the criteria for a strong title, how to clarify key terms, and how to avoid the three classic traps — titles that are too broad, too narrow, or one-sided. Get this right and the whole essay falls into place.

At a glance

Component 2 = a 1750–2000 word essay, 40 marks, on a global question YOU devise. AO1 63% · AO2 22% · AO3 15%.
The question is half the battle: a weak title caps the whole essay — invest serious time here.
A strong title is a genuine QUESTION that invites at least TWO globally contrasting perspectives.
It must be DEBATABLE (not factual), GLOBAL (cross-border significance) and answerable in ~2000 words.
Clarify key terms in the title so the scope is clear (e.g. what counts as 'developed', 'success', 'harm').
Avoid three traps: too BROAD (can't be answered in the word limit), too NARROW (no debate), or ONE-SIDED.
Draft 3 candidate questions and test each against the criteria before choosing — don't commit to the first idea.
Teacher support must stay general: the question and essay must be the candidate's own, authenticated work.

What you’ll learn

Mapped to the Cambridge International A Level 9239 syllabus (2026-2028).

Select a suitable global issue from topics studied during the course.
Narrow a broad issue into a manageable, debatable question.
Write an effective essay title that invites two contrasting perspectives and clarify its key terms.
Avoid titles that are too broad, too narrow or one-sided.

Why the question is half the battle

A weak question caps the essay before you write a word — the title decides what is possible.

Component 2 is a research essay of 1750–2000 words (40 marks) on a global question you choose and word yourself. The single biggest factor in your grade is the question itself.

Why the question decides so much:

A title that is not debatable gives you nothing to argue — you can only describe.
A title that is too broad cannot be answered in 2000 words — you skim and never go deep.
A title that is one-sided blocks the contrasting perspectives the mark scheme requires.
A title with unclear terms lets the essay drift, losing focus and AO3 (communication) marks.

In other words, a weak question caps the whole essay before you write a sentence. The mark scheme rewards exploring contrasting perspectives, evaluating sources, and reaching a reasoned judgement — all of which are only possible if the question invites them.

The AO profile tells you what the essay must do (and therefore what the question must allow):

AO1 (63%) — research, analyse and evaluate contrasting perspectives and evidence.
AO2 (22%) — reflect on how engaging with those perspectives shaped your own view.
AO3 (15%) — communicate it clearly, with referencing.

A good question makes all three possible; a poor one makes them impossible. So spend real time here — it is the highest-leverage decision in the whole component.

C2 is a self-devised 1750–2000 word essay (40 marks); the question drives the grade.
Weak questions block debate, depth, contrasting perspectives or focus.
The title must allow AO1 (evaluate perspectives), AO2 (reflect) and AO3 (communicate).
Invest serious time choosing and wording the question.

Choosing a suitable global issue

Pick a genuinely global, debatable issue you can research — usually from a topic studied in the course.

Start by choosing the issue, then shape the question. A suitable issue has four features.

1. Genuinely global. It has significance across borders, cultures or populations — not a purely local matter. You can ground it in a local example, but it must connect to a worldwide pattern.

2. Genuinely debatable. Reasonable, informed people disagree about it. If everyone agrees, there is no essay.

3. Contrasting perspectives exist. At least two coherent worldviews (e.g. economic vs ethical) take different positions — and you can build each from real sources.

4. Researchable in scope. Credible, globally diverse sources exist, and the issue is narrow enough to explore properly in ~2000 words.

Where to find issues: the global topics studied in the course (e.g. climate change, migration, globalisation, medical ethics, human rights, technology). Apply a theme (culture, economics, environment, ethics, politics, science, technology) to a topic to generate a sharp issue — Topic → Theme → Issue.

Quick test — the "two-perspective check": before going further, name the two contrasting perspectives your issue generates and one core argument for each. If you can't, the issue is either not debatable or not yet focused — pick or narrow differently.

A weak vs strong issue:

✗ "My town's new shopping centre" — purely local, largely factual.
✓ "Whether the global spread of large retail chains harms local cultures" — global, debatable, contrasting perspectives (economic development vs cultural heritage).

Choose an issue that is global, debatable, perspective-rich and researchable.
Generate issues with Topic → Theme → Issue from course topics.
Apply the two-perspective check: name two contrasting views + a core argument for each.
Avoid purely local or purely factual issues — they cannot sustain the essay.

Narrowing a broad issue into a precise question

Turn a broad topic into a focused, debatable question phrased to invite two perspectives.

A broad issue must be narrowed into a precise, answerable question. Broad topics ("climate change", "migration") are not essay titles — they are starting points.

The narrowing funnel:

Topic — e.g. climate change.
Theme — e.g. economics.
Issue — who should bear the cost of cutting emissions?
Question (title) — "To what extent should wealthy nations fund the cost of decarbonisation in developing countries?"

Features of a strong essay title:

It is phrased as a genuine question (often "To what extent…?", "Should…?", "Is…justified?").
It invites at least two contrasting perspectives by its very wording.
It is specific — a defined scope you can actually cover in ~2000 words.
It is debatable, not answerable by a simple fact.

Question stems that work well:

"To what extent…?" (judge a degree — ideal for two-sided debate).
"Should…?" / "Is it justified to…?" (clear yes/no tension to argue between).
"Do the benefits of … outweigh the costs?" (built-in two sides).

Avoid stems that don't:

"What is…?" / "Describe…" → invites description, not argument.
"How does … work?" → explanatory, not debatable.

The right stem does half the framing for you — it forces the essay to be argumentative and two-sided.

Narrow via the funnel: Topic → Theme → Issue → Question.
A strong title is a genuine, specific, debatable question.
Use argumentative stems: 'To what extent…?', 'Should…?', 'Do the benefits outweigh…?'.
Avoid descriptive stems ('What is…?', 'Describe…') — they block argument.

Clarifying the key terms in your title

Define the slippery words in your question so the essay's scope is clear and focused.

Most titles contain terms that need defining — words whose meaning shapes what the essay must cover. Clarifying them early keeps the essay focused and earns AO3 (communication) credit.

Which terms to clarify:

Vague evaluatives — "success", "harm", "benefit", "effective", "fair" (success by what measure?).
Group labels — "developed nations", "the West", "young people" (who exactly?).
Scope words — "society", "the economy", "culture" (whose? where?).

Example. Title: "To what extent has globalisation harmed local cultures?"

Globalisation — define which aspect (economic integration? cultural spread via media?).
Harmed — by what measure (loss of languages? homogenisation? or change ≠ harm)?
Local cultures — which, where? (a defined region keeps it answerable).

Why this matters:

It fixes the scope so you don't drift or try to cover everything.
It prevents the two perspectives talking past each other (they must debate the same defined question).
It signals precision and control to the examiner (AO3).

Where to clarify: briefly in the introduction of the essay (one or two sentences), not as a separate glossary. Clarifying terms is part of setting up the debate.

Define vague evaluatives ('success', 'harm'), group labels and scope words.
Clear definitions fix the essay's scope and prevent drift.
They stop the two perspectives debating different things.
Clarify terms briefly in the introduction — it earns AO3 credit.

Avoiding the three traps: too broad, too narrow, one-sided

Test every candidate title against the three failure modes before committing.

Most weak titles fall into one of three traps. Test your title against all three.

Trap	Symptom	Fix
Too broad	"Is globalisation good or bad?" — endless scope	narrow with a theme, region or specific aspect
Too narrow	a single fact or tiny local case — nothing to argue	widen to a debatable global version
One-sided	"Why is pollution harmful?" — only one answer	reframe to invite genuine opposition ("To what extent…?")

The drafting method that works: write three candidate questions, then score each against the checklist — global? debatable? two contrasting perspectives? answerable in ~2000 words? key terms clear? Choose the one that passes all five, refine it, and only then begin researching. Peer- or self-review against these criteria catches weak titles before they cost you.

Three traps: too broad, too narrow, one-sided.
Too broad → narrow it; too narrow → widen to a debatable global version; one-sided → reframe to invite opposition.
Draft three candidate questions and score each against the checklist.
Choose the title that is global, debatable, two-sided, focused and clearly termed.

Quick recap

Component 2 is a self-devised 1750–2000 word essay (40 marks); the question is half the battle and caps the essay if weak.
Choose an issue that is genuinely global, debatable, perspective-rich and researchable.
Narrow via Topic → Theme → Issue → Question; phrase the title as a genuine, specific, debatable question.
Use argumentative stems ('To what extent…?', 'Should…?') that invite two contrasting perspectives.
Clarify the key terms in your title (success, harm, group labels) to fix scope and earn AO3 credit.
Avoid titles that are too broad, too narrow or one-sided; draft three candidates and test against the checklist — the work must be your own.

Memorise this

Verbatim phrases and definitions Cambridge mark schemes credit.

Component 2 — self-devised essay, 1750–2000 words, 40 marks; AO1 63% · AO2 22% · AO3 15%.
Strong title — a genuine, specific, debatable QUESTION inviting two contrasting perspectives.
Narrowing funnel — Topic → Theme → Issue → Question.
Good stems — 'To what extent…?', 'Should…?', 'Do the benefits outweigh…?'.
Bad stems — 'What is…?', 'Describe…', 'How does…work?' (descriptive, not argumentative).
Clarify key terms — define vague evaluatives, group labels and scope words in the introduction.
Three traps — too broad, too narrow, one-sided.
Method — draft 3 candidate questions; test each (global? debatable? two-sided? answerable? clear terms?).
Integrity — the question must be the candidate's own; teacher support stays general.

How it’s examined

Choosing and framing the question is the foundation of Component 2 (the essay), a piece of externally-marked submitted coursework of 1750–2000 words worth 40 marks (AO1 63%, AO2 22%, AO3 15%). The candidate devises their own global question, so the title is assessed implicitly through everything that follows: a question that is genuinely global, debatable and invites two contrasting perspectives makes it possible to access the AO1 marks for exploring and evaluating perspectives, the AO2 marks for reflection, and the AO3 marks for focused communication; a question that is too broad, too narrow, one-sided or merely descriptive caps the essay regardless of writing quality. Examiner and teaching guidance is emphatic that 'the question is half the battle' and recommends drafting and evaluating several candidate questions against clear criteria before choosing. Because Component 2 is authenticated coursework, teacher support must remain general — the question and essay must be the candidate's own work — and clarifying the key terms of the title (in the introduction) both focuses the essay and contributes to the communication marks.

Sources: Cambridge International AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research 9239 syllabus (for examination in 2026, 2027 and 2028); 9239 Component 2 (Essay) assessment criteria and mark bands (Cambridge International); 9239 Examiner Reports — Component 2 (choosing and framing the question). Last reviewed 2026-06-30.

Take this whole topic with you

Step-by-step worked examples — Choosing & Framing the Essay

Step-by-step solutions to past-paper-style questions on choosing & framing the essay, written exactly the way a tutor would explain them at the board.

Question type:

1Spotting why a title is weak
Getting startedIdentify & classify• Component 2, question design
Question
A student proposes the title: "Climate change." Explain why this is not a usable essay title and what is missing.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Test: is it a question? No — it is a topic, not a question, so there is nothing to argue.
2. Step 2
  Test: is it debatable/two-sided? Not as worded; it gives no position to take.
3. Step 3
  Test: is the scope answerable? Far too broad for ~2000 words.
4. Step 4
  Fix direction. Narrow with a theme and phrase as a debatable question.
Answer
"Climate change" is a topic, not a title: it is not phrased as a question, it offers no debatable position, and it is far too broad to answer in 1750–2000 words. It needs narrowing (via a theme) into a genuine, two-sided question, e.g. "To what extent should wealthy nations fund decarbonisation in developing countries?"
Examiner tip
A title must be a debatable question with a manageable scope. A bare topic caps the essay before it begins — the most common framing error.
2Choosing an argumentative question stem
Getting startedIdentify & classify• Component 2, question design
Question
Which stem produces a better essay question and why? (a) "What is artificial intelligence?" (b) "To what extent should the development of artificial intelligence be regulated?"
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  (a) 'What is…?' invites description/definition — no argument or perspectives.
2. Step 2
  (b) 'To what extent should…?' invites a judgement of degree with two sides (regulate vs allow innovation).
3. Step 3
  Conclude. (b) is argumentative and two-sided; (a) is descriptive.
Answer
(b) is far better. 'To what extent should…?' demands a judgement and invites two contrasting perspectives (protect the public through regulation vs preserve innovation/freedom). (a) 'What is…?' only invites description, which cannot access the AO1 marks for evaluating perspectives.
Examiner tip
The stem does half the framing. Argumentative stems ('To what extent…?', 'Should…?') force a two-sided essay; descriptive stems block it.
3Narrowing a broad topic with the funnel
Building confidenceMulti-step problem• Component 2, narrowing
Question
Take the broad topic 'migration' and narrow it into a usable essay question using the Topic → Theme → Issue → Question funnel.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Topic: migration.
2. Step 2
  Theme: economics (could also use ethics, culture, politics).
3. Step 3
  Issue: does immigration help or harm the host economy?
4. Step 4
  Question: 'To what extent does immigration benefit the economies of host countries?' — global, debatable, two-sided, focused.
Answer
Topic: migration → Theme: economics → Issue: does immigration help or harm host economies? → Question: "To what extent does immigration benefit the economies of host countries?" This is global, debatable, invites two contrasting perspectives (economic gain vs strain on wages/services) and is answerable in ~2000 words.
Examiner tip
The funnel turns an unmanageable topic into a sharp question. A different theme (ethics) would yield a different, equally valid question.
4Clarifying the key terms in a title
Building confidenceMulti-step problem• Component 2, key terms
Question
Title: "To what extent has tourism harmed developing countries?" Identify the key terms that need clarifying and show how to define them.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Spot the slippery terms. 'tourism' (which kind?), 'harmed' (by what measure?), 'developing countries' (which/where?).
2. Step 2
  Define for scope. Tourism = mass/international tourism; harmed = environmental, cultural and economic costs vs benefits; developing countries = a defined set/region.
3. Step 3
  Note a contested term. 'Harmed' may itself be defined differently by the two perspectives — make that explicit.
Answer
Key terms: 'tourism' (specify mass/international tourism), 'harmed' (define the measure — environmental, cultural, economic), and 'developing countries' (define which/where). Clarifying these in the introduction fixes the scope and stops the two perspectives debating different things. 'Harmed' can also be a point of contention — one perspective may see change as harm, the other as development.
Examiner tip
Defining key terms focuses the essay and earns AO3 credit. Noticing that a term is itself contested can deepen the debate, not just narrow it.
5Reframing a one-sided title
StretchMulti-step problem• Component 2, one-sided
Question
A student proposes: "Why is social media harmful to teenagers?" Explain the problem and reframe it into a strong title.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  Diagnose. 'Why is X harmful?' assumes the conclusion — it is one-sided, inviting only reasons for harm.
2. Step 2
  Consequence. It blocks contrasting perspectives, so the essay can't evaluate or reach a genuine judgement (caps AO1).
3. Step 3
  Reframe to invite opposition. Use a balanced, debatable stem.
4. Step 4
  Result. 'To what extent does social media harm the wellbeing of teenagers?' allows both harm and benefit perspectives.
Answer
The title 'Why is social media harmful to teenagers?' assumes its own conclusion and is one-sided, so it blocks the contrasting perspectives the mark scheme requires. Reframe it as: "To what extent does social media harm the wellbeing of teenagers?" — this invites both the 'harm' and the 'benefit/connection' perspectives and demands a reasoned judgement.
Examiner tip
One-sided titles are a top-band killer — they make balance impossible. Reframing with 'to what extent' opens genuine two-sided debate.
6Drafting and choosing between three candidate questions
StretchMulti-step problem• Component 2, question design
Question
A student interested in food and ethics drafts: (a) "Is eating meat wrong?" (b) "What do vegetarians eat?" (c) "To what extent should governments discourage meat consumption to protect the environment?" Evaluate each and choose the best.
Step-by-step solution
1. Step 1
  (a) Debatable but very broad and abstract; scope hard to control in 2000 words.
2. Step 2
  (b) Descriptive and factual — no debate or perspectives.
3. Step 3
  (c) Global, debatable, two-sided (environment/public-health vs freedom/economic/cultural), and focused by 'governments' and 'to protect the environment'.
4. Step 4
  Choose (c) and clarify terms ('discourage', 'the environment').
Answer
(a) is too broad and abstract; (b) is purely descriptive. (c) — "To what extent should governments discourage meat consumption to protect the environment?" — is the strongest: global, debatable, two-sided (environmental/health benefit vs personal freedom, economic and cultural cost) and focused enough for ~2000 words. Clarify 'discourage' (taxes? campaigns?) and 'the environment' in the introduction.
Examiner tip
The recommended method: draft several candidates and score each against the criteria (global, debatable, two-sided, answerable, clear terms). Choosing deliberately is itself good practice — and useful material for the AO2 reflection.

Model Answers — Choosing & Framing the Essay

Component 2 is coursework — you devise your own essay question, so these are not questions from a past exam paper. Each is a worked exemplar that shows how to choose and frame a strong essay question and what a high-scoring approach looks like, with examiner-style notes mapping it to the mark scheme and the assessment objectives (AO1, AO2, AO3).

Question 1
Component 2 essay (exemplar)2 marks
[EASY] State two features that an effective Component 2 essay title must have. [2]
Model answer
Any two of:

It is phrased as a genuine, debatable question (not a topic or a factual question).

It invites at least two contrasting perspectives.

It is global in significance.

It is specific/focused enough to answer in 1750–2000 words.
Why this scores
One mark per correct feature. The two non-negotiables are 'debatable question' and 'invites contrasting perspectives'.
Question 2
Component 2 essay (exemplar)3 marks
[EASY] Identify which trap each title falls into — too broad, too narrow, or one-sided: (a) "Is war ever a good thing?" (b) "How many people emigrated from my town in 2023?" (c) "Why is plastic bad for the oceans?" [3]
Model answer
(a) "Is war ever a good thing?" — too broad (enormous, abstract scope; impossible to cover well in ~2000 words).

(b) "How many people emigrated from my town in 2023?" — too narrow (a single local fact; nothing to debate).

(c) "Why is plastic bad for the oceans?" — one-sided (assumes the conclusion; invites only one side).
Why this scores
One mark each. Recognising the three failure modes is the diagnostic skill behind framing a strong question.
Question 3
Component 2 essay (exemplar)6 marks
[MEDIUM] A student proposes the title "Globalisation." Explain why it is unsuitable and rewrite it as a strong essay question, justifying your version. [6]
Model answer
Why it is unsuitable: "Globalisation" is a topic, not a question. It is not phrased as something to argue, it offers no debatable position, and it is far too broad to address in 1750–2000 words — globalisation spans economics, culture, politics and the environment. As worded it cannot access the AO1 marks for evaluating contrasting perspectives, because it does not set up a debate.

Rewritten title: "To what extent has economic globalisation harmed local cultures in developing countries?"

Justification:

It is a genuine, debatable question (reasonable people disagree).

It is global in significance (cross-border, cross-cultural).

It invites two contrasting perspectives — an economic-development view (globalisation brings prosperity and choice) vs a cultural-heritage view (it erodes local traditions and languages).

It is focused — limited to economic globalisation, cultural harm, and developing countries — so it is answerable in the word limit.

Its key terms (economic globalisation, harmed, local cultures) can be clarified in the introduction.
Why this scores
Credit a clear diagnosis (topic not question; too broad; no debate) and a rewritten title that is debatable, global, two-sided and focused, with justification against the criteria. Naming the two perspectives is strong evidence the question 'works'.
Question 4
Component 2 essay (exemplar)5 marks
[MEDIUM] For the title "To what extent has tourism been beneficial for small island nations?", identify the key terms that should be clarified and explain why clarifying them matters. [5]
Model answer
Key terms to clarify:

"tourism" — which kind? (mass/cruise tourism vs eco-tourism behave very differently).

"beneficial" — by what measure? (economic income, employment, infrastructure — weighed against environmental and cultural costs).

"small island nations" — which ones, or which region? (defining the scope keeps it answerable).

Why it matters:

It fixes the scope so the essay does not drift or try to cover everything.

It ensures the two perspectives debate the same question (e.g. economic benefit vs environmental/cultural cost) rather than talking past each other.

"Beneficial" is partly contested — what one perspective counts as a benefit (income) another may see as outweighed by harm — so defining it sets up the debate clearly.

Clear definitions signal precision and control, contributing to the AO3 communication marks.
Why this scores
Marks for identifying the slippery terms and explaining the effect (scope control, preventing the perspectives talking past each other, AO3 clarity). Noting that 'beneficial' is contested shows depth.
Question 5
Component 2 essay (exemplar)8 marks
[HARD] Choose a global topic you have studied. Devise a strong Component 2 essay question on it, then justify it fully: explain how it satisfies the criteria for a good title, name the two contrasting perspectives it invites, and identify the key terms you would clarify. [8]
Model answer
Topic chosen: medical ethics / access to medicine.

Devised question: "To what extent should pharmaceutical companies be required to provide essential medicines at low cost to developing countries?"

How it satisfies the criteria:

Genuine question & debatable — reasonable, informed people disagree; it demands a judgement of degree ('to what extent').

Global significance — it concerns access to medicine across borders and global inequality.

Invites two contrasting perspectives — see below.

Focused & answerable — limited to essential medicines, low-cost provision, and developing countries, so it fits ~2000 words.

Argumentative stem — 'to what extent should…?' forces a two-sided, evaluative essay rather than description.

The two contrasting perspectives:

An ethical / humanitarian perspective — access to essential medicine is a human right, so companies (and the global community) have a moral duty to make it affordable; lives outweigh profits.

An economic / commercial perspective — pharmaceutical research is hugely expensive and risky; without patent protection and profit, companies cannot fund the innovation that produces new medicines in the first place, so forced low pricing could reduce future drug development.

Key terms to clarify (in the introduction):

"essential medicines" — define (e.g. WHO essential medicines list) to bound the scope.

"low cost" — relative to what (cost price, ability to pay)?

"required" — by whom and how (legal mandate, voluntary licensing, international agreement)?

"developing countries" — define the set/region.

This question is global, genuinely two-sided, focused and clearly bounded — so it gives the essay everything it needs to evaluate contrasting perspectives, reach a reasoned judgement, and reflect on how engaging with both shaped the writer's view.
Why this scores
Top-band design task: a debatable, global, focused question with an argumentative stem; two genuinely contrasting, well-articulated perspectives; and clarified key terms. Demonstrating that the question 'works' by naming the two perspectives and bounding the scope is exactly the planning that produces a high-band essay.
Question 6
Component 2 essay (exemplar)8 marks
[HARD] A student must choose one of three titles for their essay: (a) "Is technology good or bad?" (b) "Should my school ban mobile phones?" (c) "To what extent does increasing reliance on artificial intelligence threaten human employment?" Evaluate all three against the criteria for a strong question and recommend one, with reasons. [8]
Model answer
(a) "Is technology good or bad?"

Debatable, but far too broad and abstract — 'technology' spans everything, so the essay would be shallow and unfocused. It also risks a vague good/bad binary rather than a precise judgement. Fails on scope.

(b) "Should my school ban mobile phones?"

Debatable and two-sided, but too local and not global — it concerns one school, lacking the cross-border significance Component 2 requires. Could be widened ("To what extent should schools ban mobile phones?") but as written it fails on global significance.

(c) "To what extent does increasing reliance on artificial intelligence threaten human employment?"

Global (AI and employment affect economies worldwide), debatable (genuine disagreement), and two-sided — a perspective that AI destroys jobs and deepens inequality vs a perspective that AI creates new jobs and raises productivity. The 'to what extent' stem demands a reasoned judgement of degree, and the scope (AI ↔ employment) is focused enough for ~2000 words.

Recommendation: choose (c). It is the only title that is simultaneously global, genuinely debatable, two-sided and focused. To strengthen it further, the student should clarify key terms in the introduction — 'reliance on AI' (which applications?), 'threaten' (net job loss vs disruption), and 'human employment' (which sectors/regions) — and ensure both perspectives are researched from globally diverse sources.

Reasoning: (a) cannot be answered well at that breadth and (b) is not global; only (c) gives the essay the debatable, two-sided, focused global question that the AO1 marks for evaluating contrasting perspectives depend on.
Why this scores
Top band: evaluates each title against explicit criteria (global, debatable, two-sided, focused), correctly rejects the too-broad and the too-local, and recommends the strongest with reasons and a plan to clarify terms. This comparative, criteria-based judgement mirrors the analytical skill the whole qualification rewards.

Key Definitions and Keywords — Choosing & Framing the Essay

Definitions to memorise and the exact keywords mark schemes credit for choosing & framing the essay answers — sharpened from recent examiner reports for the 2026 Cambridge International AS & A Level 9239 sitting.

Component 2 (Essay)
Examiner keyword
Externally-marked submitted coursework: a 1750–2000 word research essay on a global question the candidate devises, exploring at least two contrasting perspectives and reaching a reasoned judgement. 40 marks; AO1 63%, AO2 22%, AO3 15%.
Essay title / question
Examiner keyword
The candidate-devised question the essay answers. Must be a genuine, debatable, global question that invites at least two contrasting perspectives and is answerable in the word limit.
Debatable
Examiner keyword
Capable of genuine disagreement among reasonable, informed people. A debatable question can be argued from more than one side; a factual one cannot.
Global issue
Examiner keyword
An issue with significance across borders, cultures or populations. Component 2 requires a global question (a purely local issue is unsuitable unless widened to its global form).
Contrasting perspectives
Examiner keyword
At least two coherent, genuinely opposing worldviews on the issue (e.g. economic vs ethical), each built from argument, evidence and assumptions. The title must invite them.
Narrowing funnel (Topic → Theme → Issue → Question)
Examiner keyword
The method for turning a broad topic into a precise title: apply a theme to a topic to generate an issue, then phrase the issue as a debatable question.
Key terms
Examiner keyword
The words in a title whose meaning shapes the essay's scope (e.g. 'harm', 'success', 'developed nations'). Clarifying them in the introduction focuses the essay and earns AO3 credit.
Too broad
A title with so large a scope that it cannot be answered with any depth in 1750–2000 words. Fixed by narrowing with a theme, region or specific aspect.
One-sided title
Examiner keyword
A title that assumes its own conclusion ('Why is X harmful?'), blocking the contrasting perspectives the mark scheme requires. Fixed by reframing to invite genuine opposition.
Argumentative stem
Examiner keyword
A question opening that forces a judgement and two sides — e.g. 'To what extent…?', 'Should…?', 'Do the benefits outweigh…?'. Contrast with descriptive stems ('What is…?', 'Describe…').

Common Mistakes and Misconceptions — Choosing & Framing the Essay

The traps other students keep falling into on choosing & framing the essay questions — taken from recent Cambridge International AS & A Level 9239 examiner reports and mark schemes — and how to avoid them.

✕Submitting a topic instead of a question
9239 Component 2 — devising the question
Why it happens
Students name what they want to write 'about' rather than a question to answer.
How to avoid it
Phrase the title as a genuine, debatable question using an argumentative stem ('To what extent…?'). A topic gives the essay no position to argue.
✕Choosing a question that is far too broad
9239 Component 2 — manageable scope
Why it happens
Big topics feel important and easy to find material on.
How to avoid it
Narrow with the funnel (Topic → Theme → Issue → Question) until the scope fits ~2000 words. Depth beats breadth.
✕Choosing a one-sided question
9239 Component 2 — contrasting perspectives required
Why it happens
Students pick a question that matches the view they already hold.
How to avoid it
Reframe to invite genuine opposition ('To what extent…?'). The essay must explore contrasting perspectives; a one-sided title blocks the top bands.
✕Choosing a purely local or factual question
9239 Component 2 — global significance
Why it happens
Local issues feel easier to research and relate to.
How to avoid it
Ensure cross-border/cross-population significance. Widen a local interest into its debatable global form, using the local case only as evidence.
✕Leaving key terms undefined
9239 Component 2 — clarifying key terms
Why it happens
Students assume the meaning of words like 'harm' or 'success' is obvious.
How to avoid it
Clarify the slippery terms in the introduction so the scope is fixed and the two perspectives debate the same question. This also earns AO3 credit.
✕Committing to the first question that comes to mind
9239 Component 2 — evaluating candidate questions
Why it happens
Students want to start researching quickly.
How to avoid it
Draft three candidate questions and test each against the checklist (global, debatable, two-sided, answerable, clear terms) before choosing. The question is half the battle.
✕Letting a teacher choose or word the question
9239 — academic integrity in submitted coursework
Why it happens
Students seek help and teachers want to assist.
How to avoid it
Teacher support must stay general; the question and essay must be the candidate's own, authenticated work. Teachers may comment on whether a question 'works', not write it.

Choosing & Framing the Essay

Detailed Study Notes

At a glance

What you’ll learn

Quick recap

Memorise this

How it’s examined

Take this whole topic with you

1Spotting why a title is weak

2Choosing an argumentative question stem

3Narrowing a broad topic with the funnel

4Clarifying the key terms in a title

5Reframing a one-sided title

6Drafting and choosing between three candidate questions

Component 2 (Essay)

Essay title / question

Debatable

Global issue

Contrasting perspectives

Narrowing funnel (Topic → Theme → Issue → Question)

Key terms

Too broad

One-sided title

Argumentative stem

✕Submitting a topic instead of a question

✕Choosing a question that is far too broad

✕Choosing a one-sided question

✕Choosing a purely local or factual question

✕Leaving key terms undefined

✕Committing to the first question that comes to mind

✕Letting a teacher choose or word the question