thanks for your help, sorry couldn't respond while AN was down!
so the take home message is:
discuss a few specific examples rather than a broad approach? or for 3 marks, 3 examples?
Y'welcome
Definitely, a few specific examples = better than broad.
I look at answering questions about the impact on health, health status, human development, SHD, global health, etc., as 'cycles'. You have a specific structure/format for answering the question, which I like to call 'one cycle'. e.g. for the impact on health status:
By [doing something specific], X may reduce the [1-2 health status indicators] from [1-3 specific diseases].Based on the number of marks, you repeat the cycle by changing the green chunk (which could then change the blue/red chunks in turn).
In a 2-mark HS question, for instance, if you answered appropriately they'd give you the 2 marks for either of these answer methods:
1. 2 brief cycles.
2. 1 cycle, 2x the depth.
Or if you were like me, you could explain 2 cycles in 2x the depth...
But, if you had a 3 mark question 'explain the impact of conflict on human development' they WOULD NOT expect you to do '3 cycles' (3 examples) for 3 marks; in fact if you explained one cycle in enough depth, you'd probably get 3 marks. For a 3-mark question like that, I'd probably try and get that balance of breadth and depth by going through 2 cycles in decent depth. But note, my cycles/examples are very
specific rather than broad.
Wow, I'm such a formula person -.- hope that made vague sense