What the investigation does
The essay asks to what extent Operation Linebacker II was a success for the United States government. It establishes the administration's political objectives before considering the bombing campaign, the Paris negotiations, South Vietnamese resistance to an agreement and competing accounts of military losses.
The argument compares immediate diplomatic results with the campaign's limited effect on the longer war. American and Vietnamese interpretations are considered alongside an interview with a civilian survivor; the conclusion treats the eventual settlement and the future survival of South Vietnam as different measures of success.
Why this example is worth reading
The question is translated into specific political and military criteria, giving the investigation a basis for weighing success.
The discussion compares the settlement process with military outcomes rather than assuming that the end of negotiations proves the bombing achieved every objective.
The essay brings contrasting national accounts and oral testimony into conversation, with some attention to when sources were produced and the evidence available to their authors.
What the examiner highlights
The examiner describes the research question as suitably narrow and focused, and awards full marks for the introduction, investigation, knowledge and reasoned argument.
The commentary identifies underdeveloped evaluation and occasional lack of clarity that required further proofreading.
The conclusion is judged consistent with the findings, while the missing contents page and insufficient use of appendices limit presentation and overall achievement.
What to examine critically
The examiner explicitly finds source evaluation underdeveloped. Claims that a source is biased need to explain how a particular claim is affected and what independent evidence can test it.
The examiner identifies missing contents and underused appendices. Interviews and numerical comparisons should contribute directly to the argument, with their limits explained in the main discussion.
Apply it to your own work
Define success in terms of the historical actors' objectives before judging the evidence.
Distinguish immediate political results, military effects and long-term consequences.
Evaluate eyewitness testimony and rival national narratives through specific corroboration rather than general labels.
Essay & assessment material
Read the original material alongside the breakdown, or download it to keep.
PDF page 3 contains a complete typed criterion commentary and the recorded 31/36 total. The essay itself is dated 2013 on its title page; the source collection is labelled May 2015. Commentary is embedded in the same PDF.
Source & assessment context
IB History English exemplars, May 2015. The source PDFs retain their original attribution. The analysis on this page is AsterDraft’s independent teaching commentary.
Examiner mark: 31/36 (legacy criteria). PDF page 3 contains a complete typed criterion commentary and the recorded 31/36 total. The essay itself is dated 2013 on its title page; the source collection is labelled May 2015. Commentary is embedded in the same PDF.