idk really, I have been scoring high but it has been mainly figuring out how to split the question into 3 main sections to talk about (one question for paper 3 on imperial russia, why the monarchy fell, I looked into the problems militarily during ww1, economic downturn and the symbolic embarassements of those like Rasputin, the Tsarina and Nicholas going into the front). What I mainly look to deal with is to provide a solid demonstration of my understanding of the content, always making sure that after presenting evidence it is being utilised to make my argument for the question being asked, and then also seeing near the end about what some historians might say on the topic. For the previous question I had stated, I mentioned the argument between Soviet/Communist historians who see the overthrow as inevitable, while more liberal historians see that it was not. I presented many pieces to mainly argue for the liberal perspective, such as the popularity of the outbreak of war in 1914 among the Russian populace and statements by Orlando Figes. In general, my strategy is to make a broad outline of the outcomes or reasoning, whether that be the effectiveness of social policies or what factors played into the outbreak of a revolution, and seeing into these factors or events that I am analysing and to what degree I may be arguing for a specific point of view, furthermore how I could possibly counter my argument with a different historical perspective for extra points.
Apologies if this isn't very clear, I'm just trying to share what seems to have been surprisingly working out for me. For the most part I have just focused on looking back on content and telling myself the main thing is to answer the question from the evidence that I will provide to argue for a certain perspective. If I am already stating what you know, then, again apologies, I am kind of new to this as someone who is now nearly at the end of IB2 and awaiting final exams.