Essay writing clinic: how to compare and contrast
by Joe Gauci
Knowing how to successfully write an essay is an essential skill if you are to do well in your IB History exams. While writing a good essay may seem quite straight forward, understanding the fundamentals of essay writing and developing specific techniques will help you to achieve your best. In this article, I explore how to write a good compare and contrast essay by sharing some top tips and reviewing an example answer. Once you’ve finished reading the article make sure to practice the techniques presented below and apply the advice to your forthcoming IB History essays. You can also read my additional Essay Clinic article, Focus on the title, for more guidance on how to keep your writing on topic and make your essay more impactful.
Top tips on tackling ‘compare and contrast’ questions for IB History
Make sure that when you spend the first few minutes of the exam planning your answer, you decide on what are the key similarities (compare) and the key differences (contrast) that you will structure your answer around. Do this instead of just thinking about what information you will include.
Structure your essay into paragraphs that directly examine either similarities or differences (obviously you need to look at both). Do NOT have the first half of your essay discussing one of your two case studies and the other half discussing the other case study. Otherwise, you will not be answering the question, which requires direct point by point comparison of the two case studies to establish where/how far they are similar and where/how far they are different.
Check that your first sentence (the ‘key’ sentence) of each paragraph of your essay is making a statement that directly and explicitly relates to a similarity or difference between the two authoritarian states or democratic states or wars that you are writing about.
An example of an IB History student’s answer to a ‘compare and contrast’ question
Below, you will see an IB History student’s essay on a question relating to authoritarian states:
‘Authoritarian states can be most clearly distinguished from each other by their ideologies since the methods they pursue to acquire power often coincide’. Discuss this statement with reference to two authoritarian states from different regions.
The student has used Mao’s China and Mussolini’s Italy as their two case studies.
The student’s essay is followed by a ‘Things to note’ section in which I reflect on what is bad and what is good about the student’s answer, and what lessons should be drawn from it in tackling compare and contrast questions for IB History.
The student’s answer:
‘Authoritarian states can be most clearly distinguished from each other by their ideologies since the methods they pursue to acquire power often coincide’. Discuss this statement with reference to two authoritarian states from different regions.
In Italy, Mussolini came to power in 1922 following his “March on Rome” which pressurised King Victor Emmanuel to invite him to form a government. The fascist party had been founded by Mussolini as the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919 as a response to the growing resentment over the war and liberal government’s failure to tackle the post-war economic crisis which saw unemployment reach 2 million. Mussolini, like many others, felt that Italy had been badly remunerated at the Versailles Treaty for its war effort and that the Treaty of London of 1915 which had brought it into the war had not been adhered to. Furthermore, there was widespread suspicion of parliamentary democracy and growing disrespect of the weak coalition governments formed as a result of the introduction of proportional representation. These reasons coupled with fear of communism, especially after the successful Russian Revolution, meant that there was an upsurge in right-wing feeling in Italy.
Mussolini created a Fascist programme that was anti-capitalist, anti-clerical, anti-democratic and anti-monarchy, believing instead in nationalism and Social Darwinism. Having, however, failed to capture the public’s imagination, he was forced to alter the Fascist programme in a show of true pragmatism when he created the National Fascist Party, omitting some of the more socialist ideals (8 hour working day, equality for women and the confiscation of war profits) and developing a more right-wing view that favoured capitalists such as big industrialists and landowners and grew to support the monarchy.
As his support grew, eventually in 1922 he was forced by more radical members to pursue a more aggressive national policy and was pulled along by the active members in the squadristi who pushed for a strong government and takeover of power. Eventually, when Balbo informed him that “we are going with or without you,” he was forced to agree to the March on Rome which was to have an unexpected success and prove a most useful bluff. It was only after he was invited to form a government with considerable powers for one year that he showed off his organisational skills and organised the Squadristi into the volunteer militia that terrorised opponents and made it possible for him to pass the Acerbo Electoral Law which would give him total control of parliament following elections in 1924.
Mao’s Chinese Communist Party can be seen to have adopted similar measures for its acquisition of power, having done so by force in eliminating an unpopular Guomindang government following the Chinese Civil War (1946-49). However, whereas in Italy the use of force contributed to Mussolini’s emergence as an authoritarian ruler, but was not the central factor, in China, Mao’s victory in the Civil War was pivotal to the creation of the People’s Republic. As in Italy before Mussolini came to power when the liberal government was discredited by its handling of the First World War, in China before 1949, the Guomindang regime was discredited by its undistinguished conduct of the Sino-Japanese War and its passive approach to the Japanese occupation of one third of China. Similarly, just as widespread resentment of the Italian government’s failure to tackle the post-First World War economic crisis created the opportunity for Mussolini to win a mass following, dissatisfaction in China at the Guomindang’s failure to control hyper-inflation eroded support for Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and played a key part in generating support for the CCP Nevertheless, immediately striking is the fact that Mao’s politics were absolute and clearly determined from the outset so that he and his followers were committed to an ideal and rejected any form of pragmatic adaptation. By contrast, Mussolini had been fervently anti-communist and actually acquired power by defending such views, the communists were their exact opposite and were anti-capitalist believing in the communal ownership of the means of producing wealth and in the sharing of profits and welfare.
In ideological terms, Mussolini’s Italy based on Fascism and Mao’s China which upheld Marxist principles, can clearly be seen as very different, indeed poles apart, and this is the most distinguishing feature between the two authoritarian states. In contrast to Mussolini, who in upholding the capitalist system, despite his rhetoric about corporatism, favoured the landowners and big industrialists who formed one of the pillars of Italian society (along with the, Army, the Church and the King), Mao, as a committed Marxist, sought to immediately eliminate such pillars in Chinese society as soon as he came to power in 1949 as part of the process of establishing a classless society. People’s Courts were established where thousands of landowners who refused to accept state confiscation of their land were condemned to death and Mao ordered that in successive five year plans the land be collectivised (first by the establishment of mutual aid teams by the cadres, then co-operatives and finally collectives).
In terms of similarities, it is not just in their methods to acquire power that authoritarian states are similar, it can be clearly seen that in both Mao’s China and Mussolini’s Italy, civil liberties were destroyed and any form of opposition repressed. Mussolini, for example, prohibited the Aventine group from returning to parliament in 1925 and had by 1928 made certain that the only candidates for elections came from the official fascist lists. Similarly, Mao’s Anti-Rightist Campaign in 1957 and the Cultural Revolution of 1966 demonstrated his determination to prevent any opposition.
In conclusion, therefore, it is apparent through these examples that the methods by which authoritarian states emerge often are similar and that their differences lie principally in what they preach and offer as explanations for economic and social policies rather on the methods they use to acquire power or indeed to maintain it.
Things to note
The student has not written a proper introduction, instead, he/she has gone straight into explaining the rise of Mussolini. This is a major weakness for two reasons. Firstly, an introduction is crucial in identifying to the IB examiner the key components of your answer and the line of argument you will take. Secondly, writing an effective introduction will mean that you will have clearly thought through your answer and ensured you have decided on a line of argument that answers the question.
Why is there no proper introduction and why is the first half of the essay not answering the question? Because the student probably did not spend 4 or 5 minutes planning his/her answer before starting to write their answer. Making a plan is vital!
The first 3 paragraphs do NOT answer the question. In fact, they cannot be answering the question because the student is ONLY looking at Italy in those 3 paragraphs and the question demands direct comparison or contrast of Italy with China (his/her chosen two case studies).
In paragraph 4, the student, at last, focuses on the question by beginning to analyse the similarities and differences between the two authoritarian states:
‘Mao’s communist dictatorship in China can be seen to have adopted similar measures for its acquisition of power, having done so by force in eliminating an unpopular Guomindang government following the Chinese Civil War (1946-49).’
The rest of paragraph 4 is also focused on the demands of the question:
‘However, whereas in Italy the use of force contributed to Mussolini’s emergence as an authoritarian ruler, but was not the central factor, in China, Mao’s victory in the Civil War was pivotal to the creation of the People’s Republic. As in Italy before Mussolini came to power when the liberal government was discredited by its handling of the First World War, in China before 1949, the Guomindang regime was discredited by its undistinguished conduct of the Sino-Japanese War and its passive approach to the Japanese occupation of one third of China…’
Paragraph 5 starts off with a clear and effective statement on the ideological differences between the two authoritarian states, agreeing with the statement in the question that this is what distinguishes them from each other most:
‘In ideological terms, Mussolini’s Italy based on Fascism and Mao’s China which upheld Marxist principles, can clearly be seen as very different, indeed poles apart, and this is the most distinguishing feature between the two authoritarian states.’
The rest of paragraph 5 is also focused on the demands of the question and addresses it well:
‘In contrast to Mussolini, who in upholding the capitalist system, despite his rhetoric about corporatism, favoured the landowners and big industrialists who formed one of the pillars of Italian society (along with the, Army, the Church and the King), Mao, as a committed Marxist, sought to immediately eliminate such pillars in Chinese society as soon as he came to power in 1949 as part of the process of establishing a classless society…’
The conclusion does effectively restate the key points of the arguments made in the essay and keeps focused on similarities and differences.
Continuing your IB History revision
In order to do well in your IB History exams you must learn how to write effectively. Don’t wait until a few weeks before your exams to start thinking about how to improve your writing. Start practicing now and apply the tips and techniques listed above every time you write or analyse an IB History essay, doing so will help you to master them and easily apply them when your exams arrive. Compare and contrast is just one of a number of skills you will need to perfect, for more guidance on how to write strong IB History essays, visit our IB History subject page where you’ll find my articles on keeping your writing focused and how to integrate different perspectives into your essays. If you’re in need of some tools to help you structure your IB exam preparation then you can also purchase our popular range of IB History study guides, including those that focus on China and Italy as authoritarian states among others. Each guide offers a thorough review of syllabus topics, examples of how to answer exam questions, and opportunities to practice developing key skills.
