AQA A Level Politics 7152 | 200 Essay Writing Words

Use these 200 AQA A Level Politics words to evaluate extracts, compare UK and US institutions and build a reasoned judgement in a 25-mark essay. Each entry gives a plain-English meaning and a usage example.

AQA Politics 7152 has three compulsory papers. Each lasts two hours and is worth 77 marks. The papers cover UK politics, US and comparative politics, and political ideas. AQA distinguishes 9-mark explanations, 25-mark extract responses and 25-mark essays.

The 200-word list

1–20 Institutions, comparison and political ideas · 21–40 Rights, institutions and Reconstruction · 41–60 Causation and historical significance · 61–80 Taking a position · 81–100 Using evidence and reasoning · 101–120 Connecting ideas · 121–140 Synthesising sources · 141–160 Building commentary and argument · 161–180 Weighing competing priorities · 181–200 Public decisions and evidence

Exam requirements · Worked response · Worked analysis · Fencing Method · Practice and FAQs · Practice workshop

1–20 Institutions, comparison and political ideas

parliamentary sovereignty — the doctrine that the UK Parliament is the supreme legal lawmaking authority. parliamentary sovereignty concerns legal authority.
uncodified — not collected into a single authoritative constitutional document. the UK has an uncodified constitution.
convention — an established political practice treated as binding politically. the confidence convention links government and Commons.
confidence — the support needed for a government to take and remain in office in a parliamentary system. the government must command Commons confidence.
fusion — overlap between institutions or officeholders that share political functions. fusion of personnel connects ministers with Parliament.
devolution — transfer of powers to elected institutions within a state. devolution changes where some decisions are made.
scrutiny — systematic examination of decisions, policy or spending. committee scrutiny can expose weaknesses in a proposal.
whip — an official who helps organise party discipline or an instruction about a vote. a strong whip can affect voting behaviour.
backbencher — a legislator who does not hold a frontbench role. backbenchers can challenge a proposal.
mandate — authority claimed from an election or other political authorisation. a government claims a mandate for a policy.
manifesto — a public statement of a party’s programme. compare a manifesto commitment with later action.
majoritarian — organised around majority control or decision. a majoritarian system can concentrate power.
proportionality — the degree to which outcomes reflect relative shares or strength. electoral proportionality relates seats to votes.
representation — the act or process of speaking or acting for others. evaluate the quality of political representation.
accountability — an obligation to explain conduct and face possible consequences. scrutiny and elections support accountability.
legitimacy — acceptance that authority or a decision is rightful. debate the legitimacy of an unelected chamber.
liberalism — a tradition placing importance on liberty, rights and limited or justified authority. compare liberal accounts of freedom.
conservatism — a tradition emphasising order, continuity and inherited institutions in varying ways. compare conservative views of state authority.
socialism — a tradition concerned with equality, cooperation and social control of economic power in varying forms. distinguish socialist accounts of ownership.
individualism — giving priority to the individual in moral or political explanation. individualism can support different accounts of liberty.

21–40 Rights, institutions and Reconstruction

federalism — the distribution of authority between national and state governments. federalism shaped disputes over enforcement.
jurisdiction — legal authority over a matter or place. a dispute about federal jurisdiction.
amendment — a formal change to a constitution or other governing text. ratify a constitutional amendment.
citizenship — legal membership of a political community. define national citizenship.
emancipation — release from slavery or another condition of legal subjection. emancipation changed legal status.
servitude — a condition of compulsory service. involuntary servitude.
enfranchisement — the granting of voting rights. enfranchisement changed formal political access.
disfranchisement — the denial or removal of voting rights. disfranchisement limited political participation.
suffrage — the right to vote. a campaign for wider suffrage.
equal protection — a constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. a claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
due process — legal protections governing how authorities act. the amendment addressed due process.
enforcement — steps taken to make a law or rule effective. enforcement affected the practical result.
ratify — formally approve a proposed legal instrument. states ratified the amendment.
abrogate — formally end or annul a law or agreement. abrogate a legal arrangement.
segregation — enforced or organised separation of groups. segregation shaped access to public institutions.
federal — relating to the national government or federal system. federal authority over civil rights.
officeholding — the holding of an official position. opportunities for political officeholding.
intimidation — the use of fear or threats to influence behavior. intimidation could discourage participation.
redress — a remedy for a wrong. seek legal redress.
retrenchment — a reduction or retreat from an earlier commitment. retrenchment in enforcement.

41–60 Causation and historical significance

catalyst — a factor that speeds up an existing process or makes action more likely. the crisis acted as a catalyst for reform.
precondition — a circumstance that must exist for something else to happen. a precondition for a political alliance.
precipitate — bring about an event suddenly or sooner than expected. a dispute precipitated the breakdown.
entrench — make an arrangement or attitude firmly established. entrench an existing division.
consolidate — strengthen control or combine gains into a more stable position. consolidate political authority.
mobilise — organise people or resources for action. mobilise supporters ahead of a vote.
ratification — formal approval of an agreement or decision. the Senate withheld ratification.
settlement — an agreement or arrangement resolving part of a dispute. a postwar settlement.
reparations — payments or other compensation for harm, often after war. a dispute about reparations.
sovereignty — the authority of a state to govern itself. a debate about national sovereignty.
coalition — a group formed through cooperation among distinct parties. assemble a governing coalition.
diplomacy — management of relations through negotiation or representation. diplomacy shaped the settlement.
liveability — the extent to which a place supports daily life and wellbeing. improve liveability in a dense neighbourhood.
coercion — use of pressure or force to secure compliance. distinguish consent from coercion.
constraint — a factor that limits the options available. a domestic constraint on foreign policy.
fragmentation — division into parts that cannot easily act together. political fragmentation weakened the coalition.
contingency — the influence of conditions or decisions that could have turned out differently. historical contingency complicates inevitability.
counterfactual — a reasoned consideration of what might have happened under different conditions. test a factor with a cautious counterfactual.
periodisation — division of historical time into meaningful periods. justify the periodisation of the essay.
durability — the ability of an effect or institution to last. judge the durability of the settlement.

61–80 Taking a position

claim — a statement you want the reader to accept. make a claim.
stance — your position on a question. take a clear stance.
thesis — the central position or interpretation your response develops. support the thesis.
premise — an idea the argument starts from. question the premise.
assumption — something treated as true without being established. test the assumption.
assert — state a position firmly. assert that access matters.
argue — give reasons in support of a position. argue for a trial.
maintain — continue to hold or defend a view. maintain that the policy is fair.
contend — put forward a position that can be challenged. contend that the proposal is workable.
justify — give sufficient reasons for a decision or judgement. justify the expense.
advocate — publicly support an action or change. advocate for reform.
defend — answer criticism of a view or choice. defend a decision.
qualify — limit a statement so it applies only where warranted. qualify the conclusion.
concede — acknowledge a valid point made by the other side. concede that costs may rise.
rebut — answer an opposing claim with reasoning or evidence. rebut the objection.
counterargument — a reasoned objection to a position. address a counterargument.
reservation — a concern that makes agreement incomplete. express a reservation.
distinguish — show what makes two things different. distinguish cost from value.
criteria — standards used to judge something. agree on the criteria.
verdict — a final judgement reached after consideration. reach a verdict.

81–100 Using evidence and reasoning

evidence — information that helps establish a claim. draw on evidence.
example — a specific case that makes a general point clearer. give a concrete example.
illustrate — make an idea clearer through a case or detail. illustrate the difficulty.
demonstrate — show how or why something is true. demonstrate a connection.
substantiate — support a claim with convincing information. substantiate the allegation.
corroborate — provide independent support for an existing account. corroborate the witness’s account.
infer — draw a conclusion from available clues. infer a motive from the wording.
imply — suggest a meaning without saying it directly. imply that change is possible.
interpret — explain what something means in context. interpret a figure in context.
analyse — examine how parts work together. analyse the writer’s choices.
evaluate — judge the strength, quality or value of something. evaluate the proposal.
plausible — reasonable enough to believe given what is known. a plausible explanation.
credible — worthy of belief or trust. a credible source.
relevant — directly connected to the issue being considered. relevant to the question.
sufficient — enough for the purpose or conclusion at hand. sufficient for a limited trial.
representative — typical enough to reflect a larger group. a representative sample.
anecdote — a brief account of a particular incident. open with an anecdote.
limitation — something that restricts what a method or claim can establish. acknowledge a limitation.
contradict — state or show something incompatible with another claim. contradict the earlier finding.
synthesise — combine ideas from separate sources into a new account. synthesise competing accounts.

101–120 Connecting ideas

whereas — introduces a clause that contrasts with another. whereas the first option costs less.
although — introduces a fact that qualifies the main statement. although demand may rise.
however — signals a contrast or change in direction. however, costs remain uncertain.
nevertheless — signals that a point still holds despite a difficulty. nevertheless, the trial could go ahead.
conversely — introduces a contrasting relationship in the reverse direction. conversely, lower demand can free capacity.
similarly — points out a meaningful likeness. similarly, smaller groups need space.
likewise — shows that a similar point applies elsewhere. likewise, evening users need lighting.
consequently — introduces a result of what came before. consequently, the queue grew.
therefore — introduces a conclusion or result that follows. therefore, a trial is justified.
furthermore — adds a supporting point. furthermore, the existing room is free.
specifically — narrows the discussion to a precise detail. specifically, the plan would add two sessions.
instead — signals a replacement or different choice. instead, use the current building.
alternatively — introduces another option. alternatively, change the timetable.
otherwise — indicates what happens under different conditions. book early, otherwise places may fill.
provided — introduces a condition when used with a following clause. provided that staffing is adequate.
despite — introduces something that fails to prevent the main outcome. despite the delay.
unlike — marks a difference between two things. unlike the previous scheme.
respectively — matches items with values in the same stated order. costs were $5 and $8, respectively.
overall — signals a judgement about the whole picture. overall, the benefits are modest.
ultimately — identifies what matters after other factors are considered. ultimately, the decision depends on demand.

121–140 Synthesising sources

attribute — identify where an idea or quotation comes from. attribute the statistic to Source A.
cite — identify the source of material used in an argument. cite the survey in Source B.
paraphrase — restate a source’s meaning in your own words and structure. paraphrase the author’s reasoning.
excerpt — a passage taken from a longer work. an excerpt from a public address.
provenance — the origin and history of a piece of material. check the provenance of a photograph.
testimony — a person’s account offered as evidence. testimony from residents.
dataset — an organised collection of data. a dataset on bus ridership.
sample — a subset examined to learn about a larger group. a sample of city schools.
metric — a defined quantity used to measure performance or change. an attendance metric.
variable — a factor that may vary or be deliberately changed. control for a confounding variable.
baseline — a reference point used to judge later differences. measure change against the baseline.
methodology — the overall system of methods used to investigate a question. question the study’s methodology.
outlier — a result far from the others in a set. identify an outlier.
independent — arising separately from the source or factor under discussion. an independent source.
convergence — movement towards agreement or a shared conclusion. convergence between findings.
divergence — movement apart or difference between results or views. divergence between local and national data.
complement — add a missing part or strength to something else. complement the survey with testimony.
complicate — show that a simple explanation leaves important things out. complicate the initial conclusion.
reconcile — explain how apparently conflicting claims can fit together. reconcile the two findings.
triangulate — check a claim by comparing different independent sources or methods. triangulate claims across three sources.

141–160 Building commentary and argument

commentary — reasoning that explains how evidence supports a claim. develop the commentary after a quotation.
warrant — the reasoning that connects evidence to a claim. explain the warrant for the claim.
grounds — the basis or reasons for holding a position. give grounds for a limited trial.
scope — the range of cases a statement or argument covers. limit the scope of the argument.
inference — a conclusion reached from available evidence. draw an inference from the pattern.
deduction — reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. reach the conclusion by deduction.
generalization — a broad statement drawn from specific cases. a generalization from a narrow sample.
analogue — a comparable case with a similar structure or function. an analogue from a neighboring district.
precedent — an earlier case used as a guide for a later one. cite a legal precedent.
exception — a case to which a rule or pattern does not apply. allow for an exception.
criterion — a single standard for judging something. use reliability as one criterion.
condition — a circumstance required for a claim or proposal to hold. state a condition for success.
implication — what follows from a statement even when left unstated. consider the implication for families.
counterexample — a case that shows a general claim does not always hold. offer a counterexample to an absolute claim.
oversimplification — an explanation that drops important complexity. avoid oversimplification.
falsehood — a statement that is untrue. identify a falsehood in a source.
equivocation — a shift between meanings of a term within a line of reasoning. detect equivocation over the meaning of freedom.
contingent — dependent on a named condition. contingent on reliable funding.
tentative — held provisionally pending stronger evidence. a tentative explanation.
defensible — capable of being supported with sound reasons. a defensible thesis.

161–180 Weighing competing priorities

trade-off — a choice in which obtaining one benefit comes with a loss elsewhere. a trade-off between privacy and convenience.
proportionate — appropriate in scale to the problem or objective. a proportionate response to a risk.
equitable — fair in view of different needs or starting points. equitable access to public services.
discretion — freedom to exercise judgement within a role or set of rules. give teachers discretion.
autonomy — the ability or right to make one’s own decisions. protect personal autonomy.
ageing — the process of becoming older, including a rise in a population’s older share. an ageing population changes service demand.
consensus — broad agreement among a group. build consensus over priorities.
dissent — expressed disagreement with a prevailing view. allow space for dissent.
compliance — acting according to a rule or requirement. monitor compliance with the rule.
intergenerational — involving or affecting people of different generations. intergenerational access to public space.
disparity — a noticeable difference between groups or outcomes. a disparity in participation.
burden — a cost, duty or difficulty borne by someone. reduce the burden on families.
incentive — a feature that encourages someone to act. create an incentive to volunteer.
deterrent — something that discourages an action. a deterrent to unsafe driving.
feasibility — whether a proposal can be carried out in practice. assess the feasibility of a pilot.
viability — whether a proposal can work or continue successfully. question the long-term viability.
allocation — distribution of limited resources among possible uses. the allocation of public funds.
reciprocity — mutual exchange of benefits, help or obligations. a relationship based on reciprocity.
compromise — a settlement in which competing parties accept some limits. reach a compromise.
safeguard — a measure designed to protect against a risk. build in a safeguard for applicants.

181–200 Public decisions and evidence

governance — how institutions make and carry out decisions. local governance shapes enforcement.
interoperability — the ability of different systems to work together. interoperability between public services.
externality — a cost or benefit that affects people outside a transaction. traffic noise is a negative externality.
regressive — placing a larger proportional burden on people with less income in a tax or charging context. a potentially regressive flat charge.
progressive — placing a larger proportional tax burden on higher incomes. a progressive tax schedule.
procurement — the process of buying goods or services, often for an institution. public procurement rules.
capacity — the amount a system can handle. expand the network’s capacity.
outcome — the result of an action or process. improve learning outcomes.
levy — an officially imposed charge. a levy on disposable packaging.
exemption — release from a rule or charge. an exemption for emergency vehicles.
substitution — the use of one option in place of another. substitution of rail travel for driving.
displacement — movement of a problem, activity or group elsewhere. displacement of traffic into nearby streets.
rationale — the reasoning behind an action. explain the rationale for a fee.
densification — an increase in the concentration of people or buildings in an area. densification near transport hubs.
causality — the relationship through which one factor produces an effect. a claim about causality needs evidence.
implementation — the process of putting a plan into practice. the implementation depends on local staffing.
walkability — how suitable an area is for walking. improve walkability near schools.
distributional — relating to how effects are shared across groups. the distributional impact of a transport charge.
incidence — where a cost or benefit ultimately falls in an economic context. assess the incidence of the charge.
spillover — an effect that reaches beyond the original activity or area. a spillover into neighbouring districts.

What AQA expects from a 25-mark response

For an extract response, identify the arguments the extract actually makes, analyse their reasoning and evaluate them using political knowledge. For an essay, evaluate the statement in the question and develop a supported judgement. In comparative politics, AQA expects explicit comparisons between UK and US government and politics.

Keep a common criterion for comparison. If the question asks how legislatures hold executives to account, compare mechanisms that serve that function. An essay that gives a list of UK features and then a separate list of US features needs sentences explaining the relationship between them. Explain what the differences mean for accountability.

AQA Politics 7152 specification at a glance · AQA Politics 7152 scheme of assessment · House of Commons Library on commanding confidence · US National Archives Constitution transcript

Word list · Worked response

Worked comparison on executive accountability

Original practice question. Evaluate the view that legislatures have similar ways of holding executives to account in the UK and the USA. One point of comparison is what happens when legislative support is lost.

The UK government must command the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office. That relationship makes parliamentary support central to government survival. In the US system, the presidency is institutionally separate from Congress and does not depend on continuing legislative confidence in the same way. Congress can still use distinct checks, including its role in impeachment and its legislative and spending powers. The institutions can therefore perform a shared function of checking executive power through mechanisms that differ in when they apply and what they can do.

A stronger judgement distinguishes the practical likelihood of using a power from its formal existence. Party discipline and the size of a majority can affect how parliamentary pressure operates. In the United States, the thresholds and procedures for impeachment and conviction shape its use. Compare those conditions when the question asks how effective each system is.

Word list · Exam requirements · Worked analysis

Worked extract analysis with an invented argument

Suppose a practice extract argues that a legislature is weak whenever the government has a reliable majority. First identify the mechanism implied by the claim. The majority makes defeats on important votes less likely. Then test its scope. A legislature may also scrutinise decisions through questions, committees and debate even when it rarely defeats the government.

An evaluative response would distinguish winning votes from exposing information or forcing ministers to justify decisions. It might agree that a dependable majority limits one kind of pressure while judging the extract too broad if it treats all scrutiny as ineffective. Use named evidence from your course to test each claim.

Word list · Worked response · Fencing Method

How to fence an AQA Politics word

1. Base. The committee scrutinises the executive. 2. Detail. The committee examines a department’s spending decisions. 3. Tone. Committee scrutiny can make ministers explain a decision publicly. 4. Logic. Even if a committee cannot reverse the decision, its findings can affect the information available to Parliament and the public. 5. Transfer. Legislative hearings can scrutinise executive action through a different institutional procedure.

Contrast accountability with control. Asking an official to explain a decision is one form of accountability. Having power to reverse it is a stronger kind of control. Use precise verbs to show which mechanism your evidence supports.

The eduKate Fencing Method for Vocabulary

Word list · Worked analysis · Practice and FAQs

Practice and frequently asked questions

How long is each paper? Two hours. What is the difference between an extract response and an essay? The extract response must engage with the arguments in the supplied material. The essay evaluates the statement in the question. How should I compare the UK and USA? Use common criteria and explain how differences in institutions or political practice affect the result.

For political ideas practice, compare how two strands of a tradition understand the same concept. A broad label is a starting point. Identify the substantive issue, such as freedom or the role of the state, and explain why different views within the tradition matter to the question.

Word list · Fencing Method

Practice workshop

Begin an extract answer with the argument

Underline a claim in the extract and write the reason it gives for that claim. Distinguish the claim from a supporting example. In the response, use a short reference to locate the argument and then evaluate its reasoning. A sentence that only repeats the extract does not show whether the argument is convincing.

Use a common comparison question

Compare what each legislature can do when it disagrees with the executive. Choose one criterion, such as ability to remove the executive or ability to obtain information. State where the systems perform a similar function and where the mechanism differs. This makes the UK–US comparison visible inside each paragraph.

Distinguish parliamentary confidence from legislative support

A UK government must command Commons confidence. An American president may need congressional support to pass legislation, but losing that support is different from losing parliamentary confidence. Explain what each form of support affects. Use the distinction when judging executive survival or the capacity to deliver a programme.

Connect evidence to an assessment objective

Knowledge can establish how a political mechanism works. Analysis explains the relationships and consequences. Evaluation judges what follows under the conditions in the question. After drafting, highlight one sentence doing each job. If one is missing, add the reasoning rather than inserting an assessment-objective label.

Test practical effectiveness separately from formal power

A committee can have a formal remit to scrutinise spending. Its practical influence may depend on information, publicity and the willingness of decision-makers to respond. Explain what the power permits and then assess the conditions of use. This makes the comparison stronger than simply listing formal powers.

Compare political ideas without flattening traditions

Choose a concept such as liberty or equality. State what two strands of a tradition share, then explain where their reasoning differs. Use a relevant thinker or argument from the specification. Avoid treating a broad tradition as if all its members agree about the same policy or view of the state.

Use evidence to test an extract’s scope

If the extract says a majority always weakens scrutiny, give a reason why that may apply to votes and ask whether it applies to hearings, debate or publication of findings. Decide which form of scrutiny is central to the question. State the limit precisely and give evidence suited to it.

Write a conclusion that compares rather than counts

Your final judgement should say which argument carries most weight and why. A UK–US comparison could find that one mechanism is stronger for executive survival while another is more relevant to a particular oversight function. Name the criterion. Counting how many examples appear on each side does not establish effectiveness.

Plan a timed 25-mark answer

Write a provisional judgement and list two arguments that support it and one that could weaken it. Assign a concrete example to each. For a comparative answer, make sure both countries appear under the same main criteria. After a timed attempt, note where your analysis became a list and revise that paragraph.

Keep the political language exact

Read every sentence using sovereignty, mandate, confidence or accountability. Identify the institution and relationship involved. An electoral claim to a mandate differs from the legal authority to act. A debate about accountability can concern explanation, sanction or removal. Choose the meaning your example can support.

Build two connected paragraphs from a single extract

Choose a claim about parliamentary accountability and identify two reasons the writer offers. Evaluate the first reason by examining how an institution is designed. Evaluate the second by considering the circumstances in which a political actor can use the power. Finish by comparing the two reasons rather than repeating the extract’s conclusion.

For transfer, write a comparative version of the same argument using UK and US examples. Decide whether both examples address the same kind of accountability. If one concerns removal and the other concerns gathering information, explain the distinction or choose more comparable evidence.

Next reading

Cambridge International AS & A Level Economics (9708) · IB Diploma Programme Economics Paper 1 (SL and HL) · AP U.S. Government and Politics

AP United States History · Cambridge A Level Thinking Skills 9694 · Back to the 200-word list

Top 200 Vocabulary Word List for AQA A Level Politics (7152) | Essay Writing