The 12-Mark Comparative Questions

Paper 3A opens with two short comparative questions before the essays. They look similar and are marked to the same descriptors, but they are not interchangeable.

Section	Question	Choice	Command word	Marks
A	One comparative question on US and UK politics	One from two	Examine or Analyse	12
B	One question on comparative theories	Compulsory	Examine or Analyse	12
C	Two essays on US politics	Two from three	Evaluate	30 each

The specification defines both Examine and Analyse, and fixes the section structure above, but it does not tie either command word to a particular section. Both are 12-mark questions assessing AO1 and AO2 only, so prepare to meet either in either section and read the command word on the paper rather than assuming it.

The 24 marks in Sections A and B are the only marks in the whole qualification assessed on AO1 and AO2 alone. There is no AO3 here — the split is AO1 6, AO2 6 — and that single fact rewrites how you answer.

Because there is no AO3, there is nothing to judge. Pearson's training material for Paper 3 puts it flatly: no introductions and no conclusions are needed on these questions, and Section A needs no theory either. Begin with the first comparative point. Marks are lost, not gained, by a paragraph explaining what the answer will do.

The mark scheme also uses four levels rather than five:

Level	Mark range
1	1–3
2	4–6
3	7–9
4	10–12

Both questions are synoptic by construction: they require knowledge of the UK drawn from Components 1 and 2 alongside the US content of Paper 3A. There is no separate instruction telling you to do this, because the demand for UK material is built into the wording of the question itself.

The two command words are defined separately in the specification, and the difference is worth holding onto.

Command word	What Pearson asks for	What it looks like on the page
Examine	Consider an idea or concept carefully and in detail: identify what it is, why it exists, and compare it with another	A theme, explained precisely in both systems, with the similarity or difference drawn out
Analyse	Deconstruct ideas and information in detail to find connections, similarities and differences, giving evidence of reasoned thinking	The same. Note that the comparative-theory requirement belongs to Section B, wherever its command word falls, not to the word Analyse

In practice the shared skill is integrated comparison. What separates a Level 4 answer from a Level 2 one is rarely the amount known; it is whether the two systems meet inside the paragraph.

The question wording also fixes the direction of travel. Section A questions ask for similarities or for differences, and Pearson's advice on the 2025 Paper 3A questions opens with it: focus on the question wording, similarities or differences. The half of the comparison the question did not request is not what is being credited.

A reliable paragraph shape has three parts:

1. Open with the comparative claim in a single sentence naming both countries.
2. Develop each side with precise, dated evidence.
3. Close by restating the connection and explaining what makes it a similarity or a difference.

Linking language does much of the work: both, similarly, whereas, by contrast, unlike the UK. Examiners in 2025 named comparative phrasing throughout as a feature of stronger answers.

Three ceilings apply to these questions, and each is written into the published mark scheme. The wording below is quoted from Pearson's Paper 3A mark scheme (June 2025 series), where it appears against the Section A and Section B questions.

Section A — discuss both. The mark scheme's words are that "candidates who refer to only one named country cannot achieve beyond Level 1" — a maximum of 3 marks out of 12. This is the harshest cap anywhere in the qualification, and it catches answers that know a great deal about the US and treat the UK as an afterthought.

Section B — discuss both. The same cap applies. An answer naming one country cannot achieve beyond Level 1.

Section B — use a comparative theory. The mark scheme's words are that "candidates who do not make any comparative theory points cannot achieve beyond Level 3" — a maximum of 9 marks out of 12. One theory, properly applied to both countries, is sufficient for the top level.

Balance is part of the first cap in spirit as well as letter. Examiner feedback on summer 2025 identified answers concentrating on one element at the expense of the other as a weakness, and roughly equal depth on both sides as a feature of the stronger scripts.

For scale, the summer 2025 averages were:

Question	Average mark out of 12	Proportion attempting
Section A — differences in Supreme Court powers	6.61	55%
Section A — similarities in legislative powers	5.75	42%
Section B — how the US and UK constitutions differ	7.58	Compulsory

Neither Section A average reached Level 3 in that series, which begins at 7. These are the shortest answers on the paper and among the most improvable, because most of what separates the levels is technique rather than content.

Section B requires at least one of the three theoretical approaches the specification sets out. Each explains similarities and differences between two political systems by looking at a different unit.

Approach	Unit of explanation	The claim it makes
Rational	Individuals	Politicians act in the way that produces the outcome most beneficial to them
Cultural	Groups	The shared ideas, beliefs and values of a group shape how its members behave
Structural	Institutions and processes	Outcomes are largely determined by the formal rules laid down in the system

The same difference can usually be explained by more than one approach, and choosing between them is itself analysis. Take the fact that US legislators rebel against their party far more often than UK MPs:

• Rational. A member of Congress is selected through a primary in their own state or district, so their career depends on their constituents rather than on the national party; an MP's career depends on party selection and promotion, so loyalty pays.
• Cultural. US parties are broad coalitions covering a very wide range of views, while UK parties present a clearer collective identity and MPs are usually elected on the party label rather than their own.
• Structural. UK whips hold real sanctions over an MP's prospects; congressional whips have far weaker instruments, so there is less to deter a rebellion.

One approach applied properly beats three named in passing. Examiners in 2025 criticised theories included as a bolt-on without explanation, and theories applied to only one country.

The question: Examine the similarities in the ways the US and UK Supreme Courts constrain the executive. Two developed paragraphs like these are a realistic target in the time, and they show the features Pearson names in stronger Paper 3A answers.

Both Supreme Courts constrain the executive principally by ruling that a government has exceeded its legal powers, and both have done so against a sitting head of government in recent years. In February 2026 the US Supreme Court held that the President could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose sweeping tariffs, on the ground that the Constitution reserves the power to tax to Congress; Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Barrett and Gorsuch joined the three liberal Justices in that ruling, and in December 2025 the same six held that the President lacked the authority to take control of the Illinois National Guard. The UK Supreme Court does the same work through a different instrument, ruling in 2017 that ministers could not trigger Article 50 without statutory authority and in 2019 that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. In both systems, then, the constraint rests on a court willing to tell an executive that it has acted outside its powers — a similarity that matters more than the different legal routes each court takes to get there.

The two courts are also similar in the security of tenure that makes such rulings possible. US Justices are appointed for life, so the six-to-three balance of Republican and Democratic appointees has been fixed since Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation in October 2020 and cannot be altered by an unhappy President. UK Justices hold office to a retirement age and can be removed only on an address by both Houses, and since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 each vacancy is filled by an independent selection commission convened for that post rather than by a minister's choice; Lord Reed is President of the UK Supreme Court as of September 2026, with Lord Briggs appointed to succeed him in January 2027 through that process. Similarly in both countries, independence is guaranteed structurally rather than by convention, which is what allows either court to rule against the government of the day.

The features to copy: both countries appear in the first sentence, both are developed with dated evidence, and the closing sentence names the similarity explicitly.

The question: Analyse the differences in the power of the US President and the UK Prime Minister over the legislature.

The clearest difference is that the UK Prime Minister sits inside the legislature while the US President is excluded from it, and this shapes everything else. A Prime Minister is an MP, leads the largest party in the Commons and controls the government's legislative programme directly — Labour's majority of 174 from the 2024 general election gives the holder of the office a working command of the chamber. A President cannot introduce a bill at all and depends on a member of Congress to do it, even where his party holds both chambers, as the Republicans have done throughout the 119th Congress with a House that began at 220–215 and a Senate at 53–47. A structural approach explains the difference precisely: the UK fuses the executive and the legislature so that the head of government is drawn from and accountable to the chamber he leads, while the US separates them so that the President's formal legislative powers reduce to recommendation and the veto. The difference is not one of personal authority but of where the constitution places each office.

A second difference follows from how each leader reaches office, and here a rational approach is more useful. A Prime Minister owes the office to his own party rather than to a separate national election, and Andy Burnham took office on 20 July 2026 after being elected Labour leader unopposed with 379 MP nominations, over 94% of Labour MPs. Those MPs have a direct interest in his survival, because the party's fortunes and their own promotion prospects are tied to it. A President is elected separately by the country and has no equivalent hold over legislators, whose own re-election depends on their state or district; a member of Congress calculating rationally can gain from opposing a President of his own party where the district demands it, which is a calculation that costs a UK backbencher far more than it gains. The two systems therefore differ less in the formal powers each leader holds over the legislature than in whether the legislators have any self-interested reason to comply.

Both paragraphs open comparatively, apply one theory each with an explanation attached, and use current, dated evidence. Neither has an introduction, a conclusion or a judgement, because none is required.

Leave out the verdict. There are no AO3 marks here. Sentences arguing that one system is better, or that the differences outweigh the similarities, are answering a question that was not asked.

Leave out the introduction and the conclusion. Examiner training states that neither is needed, and lists long introductions or conclusions that add no value among the features of weaker answers.

Leave out theory on Section A. Comparative theories belong in Section B. Section A rewards precise knowledge and integrated comparison.

Leave out extended history. Weaker 2025 answers were described as focusing too heavily on historical origins without linking to current issues. A sentence of context is enough; the evidence should be recent.

Timing. Paper 3A allows 2 hours for 84 marks, and the question paper advises using the marks in brackets as a guide to how long to spend on each question. On that basis:

Question	Marks	Guide time
Section A	12	~17 minutes
Section B	12	~17 minutes
Section C essay 1	30	~43 minutes
Section C essay 2	30	~43 minutes

Two developed comparative paragraphs is a realistic target in 17 minutes, and enough for the top level if each is genuinely comparative. The risk on this paper runs the other way: over-writing the short questions leaves the second 30-mark essay short, and 30 marks are worth two and a half times as much as 12.

1. Writing about one country

The single most expensive error on this paper. An answer that names only one country cannot achieve beyond Level 1 on either 12-mark question, whatever it knows.

2. Splitting the countries into separate paragraphs

Side-by-side description was listed among the 2025 weaknesses. A paragraph on Congress followed by a paragraph on Parliament has described two legislatures without comparing them, and AO2 credits the comparison.

3. Supplying similarities when the question asked for differences

Read the command line twice. Pearson's first piece of advice on these questions is to focus on the question wording — similarities or differences — and material answering the other half is not what the question is asking for.

4. Bolting the theory on at the end

A closing sentence announcing that this reflects structural theory is not analysis. The theory should explain the difference you have just set out, and it has to cover both countries.

5. Writing an introduction and a conclusion

They consume several minutes of a 17-minute question and earn nothing, since there are no AO3 marks to claim.

6. Listing points without developing them

Examiners in 2025 recorded answers listing characteristics with minimal development. Each comparative claim needs evidence and an explanation of why the two systems come out differently.

7. Relying on vague or dated examples

Precision is what separates Level 3 from Level 4. Attach a date and a figure — "as of September 2026", "a House that began the 119th Congress at 220–215" — rather than asserting that a chamber is closely divided.