The 30-Mark Source Question

Papers 1 and 2 open with a source question worth 30 marks, chosen from two alternatives. It sits in Section A alongside a 30-mark essay, and together they make up 60 of the paper's 84 marks.

Each of the three papers lasts 2 hours, carries 84 marks and is worth 33⅓% of the A-level, so no paper can be traded off against another. Across the whole qualification the Assessment Objectives are weighted AO1 35%, AO2 35%, AO3 30% — evaluation is the smallest of the three but it is the one candidates most often leave unclaimed.

The stem is fixed. It reads: Using the source, evaluate the view that… — followed by three bullet points that appear on every source question:

Rubric bullet	What it is asking you to do
Compare and contrast the different opinions in the source	Find the similarities and the differences between the competing views the source sets out
Examine and debate these views in a balanced way	Give real consideration to the side you end up rejecting, rather than dismissing it
Analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source	Build your AO2 and AO3 on the source's own material

The marks divide evenly: AO1 10, AO2 10, AO3 10. That split is the single most useful fact about this question. Knowledge alone reaches a third of the marks. The other twenty are earned by analysing the source's arguments against each other and delivering a reasoned verdict.

Sources are short, adapted extracts on a contested political topic. Under the current specification a source is either a single written text, or a single source combining text with data — a pie chart, a table, or a simple graph such as a bar chart. Issue 4 of the specification lists those two forms only, so a source is never data on its own. A brief line of context introduces the source, but that context is not itself assessed.

The source will present competing views. It is not one-sided, and it is chosen because a sensible person could argue either way.

The third rubric bullet is the one candidates break most often, and it is expensive. Pearson's mark scheme instructs examiners that marks for analysis (AO2) and evaluation (AO3) should be awarded only where they relate to information in the source.

This creates a rule with two halves:

• AO1 can come from anywhere. Facts and examples from your own knowledge earn AO1 credit whenever they are relevant and support your argument.
• AO2 and AO3 must grow out of the source. Analysis and judgement about a topic the source does not raise falls outside what this question assesses.

Pearson's own worked illustration is precise. Imagine a source about electoral reform that mentions proportional representation. You may bring in from memory that PR comes in several forms, and then argue that the single transferable vote strengthens individual candidates while the additional member system strengthens parties. That is legitimate AO2, because it develops something the source already contains.

Now imagine the same source, and a candidate who writes brilliantly about the timing of elections instead. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act might scrape an AO1 mark. The analysis and evaluation built on top of it earn nothing, because the source's argument was about reform of the voting system, not about when elections are held.

Pearson's Source-based questions guidance describes this failure as hijacking the question: substituting the debate you prepared for the debate the source actually sets up.

The practical consequence is that a source answer and a pre-learned essay are different products. An essay you have rehearsed on electoral systems will contain paragraphs the source does not support, and those paragraphs will carry AO2 and AO3 that cannot be credited.

Work in a fixed order. Read the question first, then the source — not the other way round — so that you already know what you are hunting for.

Step 1 — read the question and name the two sides. Write them at the top of your answer booklet as a pair. For the practice source below, the sides are "replace FPTP" and "keep FPTP".

Step 2 — mark the source. Tick every phrase that supports the view in the question and cross every phrase that undercuts it. Aim to leave nothing unmarked; every substantive point in the source should end up commented on somewhere in your answer.

Step 3 — pair the marks. Draw a line joining each tick to the cross that argues against it. Those lines become your paragraphs.

Here is a practice source written in the style Pearson uses. The question is: Using the source, evaluate the view that first-past-the-post should be replaced for Westminster elections.

First-past-the-post has usually given Westminster single-party government, and 2024 was no exception: Labour won a Commons majority of 174. Supporters call that the system working — a decisive outcome, a clear mandate, and a named MP in every constituency whom voters can remove.

Critics look at the same election and see the reverse. That majority of 174 rested on 33.7% of the UK vote, and turnout was 59.7%, the lowest since 2001. Wales has moved the other way. At the Senedd election of May 2026 the country used a closed proportional list system for the first time, and no party came near a majority: Plaid Cymru took 43 of the 96 seats on 35.4% of the vote and Reform UK 34 on 29.3%. Turnout rose to 51.6%, the highest at any Senedd election.

Defenders of the Westminster system answer that proportional results buy fairness at the cost of decisiveness, handing the choice of government to bargaining between parties after the votes are counted rather than to the voters themselves.

Annotated, that source yields three pairs: decisive majorities against disproportionality; the constituency link against turnout and legitimacy; and the Welsh proportional result against the objection that proportionality produces post-election deals.

The strongest structural decision you make is to pair. Examiner feedback on the summer 2025 series identified paired points as a feature of stronger source answers, and organising the essay as one block for the view followed by one block against it as a feature of weaker ones.

A paired section has four moves:

1. State the point from the source, quoting a short phrase or referring to it clearly.
2. Develop it with knowledge — an example, a date, a figure, a definition. This is where AO1 does its work.
3. Turn to the source's counter-point and argue it in its own strongest form.
4. Judge between them in the same paragraph, saying which is stronger and why.

Move 4 is the one most often skipped. Pearson's guidance warns that AO3 developed only in a closing paragraph is thin, since evaluation is worth a third of the marks and should occupy roughly a third of your attention.

Compare the two structures on the same material:

Block structure	Paired structure
Paragraphs 1–3: everything for replacing FPTP	Paragraph 1: majorities, then disproportionality, then a judgement
Paragraphs 4–6: everything for keeping FPTP	Paragraph 2: constituency link, then turnout, then a judgement
Final paragraph: a verdict arriving from nowhere	Paragraph 3: Wales under CPLS, then coalition bargaining, then a judgement

The block version can contain identical knowledge and still land lower, because the comparison between the two sides is left for the reader to perform.

The extract below answers the practice question, arguing that first-past-the-post should be replaced. Read it for shape, not for content to memorise.

Paragraph one — majorities against disproportionality.

The source's strongest defence of first-past-the-post is decisiveness: Labour's Commons majority of 174 in 2024 let a government take office the morning after the poll and legislate on its manifesto without negotiating with anyone. That is a real democratic good, because voters can see before they cast a ballot who will be held responsible afterwards. The difficulty is that the source supplies the figure that undermines its own case. The same majority of 174 was built on 33.7% of the UK vote, on a turnout of 59.7% — the lowest since 2001. A government resting on roughly a fifth of the registered electorate can claim to be decisive, but its claim to be representing a national verdict is much weaker. Decisiveness is therefore the lesser argument here: it describes how efficiently power is transferred, while the disproportionality figure goes to whether the transfer reflects what voters chose. On this pairing the case for replacement is the stronger.

Three things are doing the work. The source is quoted and used, not summarised. The knowledge is precise and dated. The judgement arrives inside the paragraph and gives a reason, rather than asserting that one side simply "wins".

Paragraph two — Wales against post-election bargaining.

Wales tests the reform argument in practice rather than in theory. The source records that the Senedd election of May 2026 was the first fought under a closed proportional list system, and that it produced no majority: Plaid Cymru 43 seats of 96 on 35.4% of the vote, Reform UK 34 on 29.3%. Seat shares that close to vote shares are exactly what critics of Westminster ask for. Against this, the source's final argument has genuine force — a result like that hands the choice of government to bargaining between party leaders, and voters cannot know in advance which combination they are voting for. Yet the objection weighs less than it first appears, because turnout in Wales rose to 51.6%, the highest at any Senedd election. A system generally expected to blunt voter engagement in fact coincided with more of it. The bargaining objection is a real cost, but it is a cost paid after the election, whereas disproportionality is a defect built into the result itself.

Notice that the counter-argument is stated at full strength before being answered. Pearson's guidance is that the view you disagree with should be given genuine consideration, not dismissed.

Examiner commentary on the June 2025 papers set out a short specification for an opening paragraph. It should define any key term the question turns on, give brief context, state the line of argument, and — on a source question — refer to the source.

Three failure modes appeared repeatedly in that series:

Weak opening	Why it costs marks
Context and definitions, but no line of argument	AO3 is worth 10 marks and should be signalled from the first paragraph
A line of argument and nothing else	The reader has no idea what the debate is about before the argument starts
A long list of every point the essay will make	Uses several minutes of a 43-minute question to say what the essay is about to say anyway

A workable opening for the practice question runs to three or four sentences: define what replacing first-past-the-post would mean, note that the source sets decisiveness against proportionality, and state that the answer will argue the case for replacement is stronger.

The closing paragraph should be brief, evaluative, and consistent with what came before it. Its job is to reassert the line of argument, not to introduce new material and not to summarise both sides evenly. A closing paragraph that reads as though it could have been attached to either verdict suggests the judgement was not genuinely reached.

Examiners flagged conclusions that felt disconnected or surprising as evidence that the analysis had not been building towards them. Decide your verdict before you write the first paragraph.

The source question is marked against five levels, each covering six marks. The bands below are those printed in Pearson's mark schemes for Papers 1 and 2 (June 2025 series):

Level	Mark range	Broad character of the answer
1	1–6	Superficial knowledge, limited comparison, descriptive judgements
2	7–12	Some accurate knowledge, emerging comparison, generic conclusions
3	13–18	Mostly accurate knowledge, mostly focused comparison, some justified conclusions
4	19–24	Accurate and selected knowledge, consistent comparison, substantiated conclusions
5	25–30	In-depth knowledge, perceptive comparison, fully justified conclusions

Two rules in the published mark scheme can hold an answer down regardless of how much it knows. Pearson's mark schemes for Papers 1 and 2 (June 2025 series) put it in one sentence against the source question: "Candidates who do not undertake any comparative analysis of the source and/or have not considered both views in a balanced way cannot achieve marks beyond Level 2." That ceiling is 12 marks out of 30.

Level 4 is reachable with modest content. Examiner training on the 2025 series described a Level 4 answer as one with about three paired points that are accurate, some good relevant examples, some development of those examples, and a line of argument running throughout that is clear to follow. Level 5 adds sophistication of analysis and evaluation compelling enough to make a reader reconsider their own view.

For scale: in summer 2025 the average mark on Paper 1's source question about the protection of rights was 17.88 out of 30, and on Paper 2's question about whether the constitution is working effectively it was 17.54. Both averages sit near the top of Level 3, which runs 13–18, and the step into Level 4 begins at 19. That is the margin the paired-point discipline is competing for.

1. Writing the essay you revised instead of the answer the source sets up

Analysis and evaluation of a debate the source does not contain fall outside what is credited on this question. Read the source before you decide what your paragraphs are about.

2. Copying out the source

Short quotations anchor a point; long transcription uses time and adds nothing, since the marks are for developing and judging the source's arguments.

3. Leaving parts of the source uncommented

The source is short and every substantive claim in it is there to be used. Ticking and crossing as you read is the cheapest way to guarantee coverage.

4. Treating both sides as equally valid

The rubric asks for balance, which means the rejected view is argued fairly. It does not mean refusing to choose. Pearson's guidance is explicit that a verdict is expected and that the reasoning behind it must be given.

5. Saving all the evaluation for the last paragraph

AO3 is 10 of the 30 marks. Judgement belongs in each paired section, with the closing paragraph confirming a case already made.

6. Using stale examples

Examiner reports on the 2025 series criticised reliance on outdated evidence. Anchor points in current material and date them — "as of September 2026", "in May 2026" — so the marker can see the currency.

7. Analysing the source's authorship

Politics is not History here. Pearson states that provenance is not what this question probes; success turns on the binary debate the source creates, not on who wrote it.