Cambridge IAS-Level · thinka-original Practice Paper

2026 Cambridge IAS-Level History (9489) Practice Paper with Answers

Thinka Jun 2026 (V1) Cambridge International AS Level-Style Mock — History (9489)

100 marks180 mins2026

An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Jun 2026 (V1) Cambridge International AS Level History (9489) paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from Cambridge.

Paper 1: Document Question (Choose 1 of 3 options)

Answer both parts of one question from your chosen section (European, American, or International option).

2 Question · 40 marks

Question 1 · essay

15 marks

European Option: France, 1774–1814

Source A
From a speech by Charles Alexandre de Calonne, Controller-General of Finances, to the Assembly of Notables, February 1787.

"The state cannot continue to subsist under its present financial disorder. The abuses which now weigh heavily upon the royal treasury were born of outdated privilege and customary exemptions. Our deficit cannot be repaired by ordinary expedients, nor by increasing the burden on the common people, who already bear more than their fair share. Equality in taxation is the only viable remedy. A universal territorial land tax, levied upon all landed property without exception or regard to noble rank or ecclesiastical immunity, will restore public credit and ensure the prosperity of the realm. It is not our intention to diminish the honourable rank of the nobility or the dignity of the clergy, but justice dictates that all who enjoy the protection of the Crown must contribute in proportion to their wealth."

Source B
From a formal remonstrance issued by members of the Assembly of Notables representing the nobility and higher clergy, April 1787.

"This Assembly cannot give its assent to the new territorial tax proposed by the Minister of Finance. The true cause of the current distress of the treasury is not the ancient exemptions of the First and Second Orders, which have formed the bedrock of the French monarchy for centuries, but rather the reckless expenditures and fiscal mismanagement of the royal administration itself. To dismantle the historic privileges of the nobility and the Church without the consent of the nation assembled in an Estates-General would subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom. The minister's proposed levy is unjust, arbitrary, and an intolerable assault on sacred property rights."

Read Source A and Source B.

Compare and contrast these sources as evidence about the proposed financial reforms in France in 1787. [15]

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Similarities between Source A and Source B:
- Both sources acknowledge that the French Crown is in a severe financial crisis / facing a heavy deficit (Source A refers to 'financial disorder' and a 'deficit'; Source B refers to the 'current distress of the treasury' and 'embarrassment').
- Both sources discuss the proposed new universal territorial land tax targeting all landed property.
- Both sources recognise that the reform directly affects the existing tax privileges and exemptions of the nobility and clergy.

Differences between Source A and Source B:
- Nature/Justification of the reforms: Source A argues the tax reform is essential, equitable, and a matter of 'justice' because the commoners are over-burdened; Source B rejects the proposal as 'unjust, arbitrary, and an intolerable assault on sacred property rights'.
- Cause of the crisis: Source A attributes the crisis to 'abuses' stemming from 'outdated privilege and customary exemptions'; Source B blames 'reckless expenditures and fiscal mismanagement of the royal administration'.
- Authority and Legality: Source A presents the reform as a legitimate royal measure designed to restore public credit; Source B claims the reform subverts the 'fundamental laws of the kingdom' and insists such changes require the consent of an Estates-General.

Explanation of differences using Context and Provenance:
- Purpose and Role of Calonne (Source A): As Controller-General of Finances facing impending bankruptcy following France's expensive participation in the American War of Independence, Calonne needed to persuade the privileged orders to surrender their tax immunities. He convened the Assembly of Notables in 1787 hoping they would endorse his reforms and pressure the Parlements. His tone combines urgency with reassuring language that he does not intend to diminish their status.
- Purpose and Interests of the Notables (Source B): The Assembly consisted of leading nobles, prelates, and magistrates whose status and wealth were intrinsically tied to the Ancien Régime's system of corporate privileges. They sought to defend their tax exemptions, deflect blame onto ministerial waste, and protect their constitutional influence by demanding the convocation of the Estates-General.
- Contextual Evaluation: Calonne's failure to convince the Notables led directly to his dismissal in April 1787, Brienne's appointment, and the deepening constitutional deadlock that culminated in the calling of the Estates-General in 1789.

Marking scheme

Level 4 (12–15 marks): Developed comparison with contextual/provenance explanation
- Explains both similarities and differences with direct source citations.
- Evaluates the sources in context, explaining why the similarities and differences exist (e.g. referencing Calonne's ministerial imperative to avoid sovereign bankruptcy vs. the Notables' self-interest in defending corporate tax immunities and checking royal absolutism).

Level 3 (8–11 marks): Compares and contrasts both sources
- Identifies explicit points of agreement and disagreement with relevant source support.
- Comparison is sustained but lacks developed evaluation of provenance or historical context.

Level 2 (4–7 marks): One-sided comparison
- Identifies only similarities OR only differences with source evidence, OR makes superficial comparisons.

Level 1 (1–3 marks): General summary / Paraphrase
- Summarises the content of the sources sequentially without valid cross-referencing or comparative structure.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Question 2 · essay

25 marks

Read all of the sources.

Source A
From a political pamphlet circulated in Paris, 1787.
It is not the honest expenses of administering justice or defending our borders that have emptied the Royal Treasury, but the bottomless appetite of the Court. Hundreds of millions of livres are squandered annually on extravagant pensions granted to idle courtiers, lavish entertainments at Versailles, and the limitless personal indulgences of the Queen and her favoured circle. Meanwhile, the industrious Third Estate is squeezed dry by extortionate levies. If the King would only purge these parasites and cut the wasteful disbursements of the palace, the Treasury would instantly overflow without the need to impose a single additional sou on his suffering subjects.

Source B
From the opening address of Charles Alexandre de Calonne, Controller-General of Finances, to the Assembly of Notables, February 1787.
Gentlemen, the deficit that threatens the state cannot be blamed upon minor abuses or the personal expenditure of our gracious Sovereign, which has already been substantially reduced. The true evil lies in the fundamental structure of our finances. The vast wealth of the kingdom is locked away behind centuries of exemption. The nobility and clergy, who possess more than half the fertile lands of France, contribute almost nothing in direct taxation, while the burden falls wholly upon the poorest. The state cannot survive when those who possess the greatest means refuse to bear an equitable share of public burdens. Structural reform of taxation alone can avert disaster.

Source C
From the published travel journals of Arthur Young, an English agricultural observer visiting France, 1788.
I find the Parisian public obsessed with the expenditures of the Queen and the Court, attributing all their present distress to diamond necklaces and royal banquets. This is a complete delusion. The immense deficit of France is the inevitable fruit of the ruinous loans contracted to fund the American War, which doubled the national debt in less than a decade. Over half of all state revenues are now swallowed entirely by interest payments to foreign creditors and bankers. Royal extravagance, though scandalous in appearance, accounts for scarcely six percent of state expenditure. The real malady is a crushing burden of war debt combined with an antiquated system of collection.

Source D
From an official remonstrance submitted by the Parlement of Paris to King Louis XVI, July 1787.
The nation cannot accept the imposition of a universal land tax when the true source of the Treasury's disorder remains concealed. Successive ministers have masked the real accounts and squandered public revenue upon secret pensions, useless offices, and frivolous court luxuries. To grant new taxes without demanding rigorous accounting and significant retrenchment from the Court would merely encourage further fiscal recklessness. The people will not surrender their ancient privileges to subsidise ministers who manage the public purse with such irresponsible extravagance.

Question
How far do these sources support the view that royal extravagance was the primary cause of the French monarchy's financial crisis? [25]

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

To achieve top marks, an answer should demonstrate a clear, balanced argument testing the hypothesis across all four sources, supported by evaluation of context and provenance.

1. Sources supporting the view that royal extravagance was the primary cause:
- Source A directly argues that the deficit was caused by royal extravagance, pensions for courtiers, and lavish court spending (mentioning the Queen's circle), asserting that cutting court waste would instantly restore financial solvency.
- Source D supports the view from the perspective of the Parlement of Paris, blaming ministerial recklessness, secret pensions, and court luxuries for the disorder in the Treasury.

2. Sources challenging the view (arguing other causes were primary):
- Source B argues that court spending was minor and had already been reduced; the root cause was the structural defect of tax exemptions for the privileged First and Second Estates (clergy and nobility).
- Source C dismisses royal extravagance as a 'complete delusion' representing only ~6% of expenditure, identifying the true primary cause as the massive debt incurred from foreign wars (American Revolutionary War) requiring crushing interest payments, alongside an inefficient tax collection system.

3. Evaluation and Synthesis:
- Source A represents popular Third Estate resentment and pamphlet propaganda aiming to mobilise public outrage; it lacks technical financial data and overstates the impact of court spending.
- Source B is from Calonne, the Controller-General, who had direct access to royal accounts. While he had a vested interest in persuading the Assembly of Notables to accept reform, his assessment of structural tax inequality is historically accurate.
- Source C offers a detached, analytical foreign viewpoint by an informed observer (Arthur Young) who distinguishes between public perception/scandal and actual macroeconomic realities (American war debt and interest obligations).
- Source D reflects the political self-interest of the noble magistrates of the Parlement of Paris, who weaponised allegations of royal extravagance to deflect attention from their own tax immunities and resist Calonne's proposed universal land tax.

Conclusion:
While Sources A and D reflect contemporary popular perception and political rhetoric blaming royal extravagance, critical evaluation and the stronger financial analysis in Sources B and C demonstrate that structural tax privileges and massive debt from foreign wars were the true primary causes of the crisis.

Marking scheme

Generic Mark Scheme for Paper 1 Part (b) [25 marks]:

- Level 5 (21–25 marks): Evaluates sources in context and reaches a sustained, supported judgement.
- Uses all four sources effectively.
- Groups sources to both support and challenge the hypothesis.
- Evaluates provenance, motive, and historical context across multiple sources to assess reliability/utility.
- Constructs a coherent, nuanced final synthesis answering the question directly.

- Level 4 (16–20 marks): Uses sources to support and challenge with contextual evaluation.
- Explains how specific sources support the view (A and D) and how others challenge it (B and C).
- Includes relevant evaluation of provenance/context for at least two or three sources.
- Reaches a clear, supported conclusion.

- Level 3 (11–15 marks): Uses sources to support and challenge without thorough evaluation.
- Shows two-sided comprehension of the sources (supports vs challenges).
- Analysis is mainly based on source content rather than critical contextual evaluation.

- Level 2 (6–10 marks): One-sided use of sources OR source paraphrase.
- Only discusses sources that support OR only sources that challenge, or simply summarises source contents.

- Level 1 (1–5 marks): Generalised comments with minimal source reference.

- Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Ready to test yourself?

Turn these notes into exam-style practice. Get unlimited AI questions on this topic with instant marking and explanations.

Practise This Topic

Paper 2: Outline Study (Choose 2 of 3 questions in 1 section)

Answer two full questions (both Part a and Part b) from your chosen option section.

4 Question · 60 marks

Question 1 · free-response

10 marks

Explain why the Bolshevik government introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

A strong causal explanation should explain several interrelated economic and political factors that compelled Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership to abandon War Communism in March 1921:

1. Severe Economic Collapse under War Communism: The policy of grain requisitioning (Prodrazvyorstka), nationalisation of all industry, and the abolition of private trade crippled the Russian economy. Agricultural output fell drastically because peasants had no incentive to produce surplus grain. By 1921, industrial output was only a fraction of its pre-1914 level, transport had broken down, and a catastrophic famine afflicted major regions (e.g., the Volga basin), threatening millions of lives.

2. Widespread Peasant Resistance: Peasant resentment against forced grain seizures led to violent rural unrest across the countryside. The most prominent example was the Tambov Rebellion (1920–21), where an insurgent peasant army fought Red Army troops. Lenin recognised that the Bolshevik regime could not survive without conciliating the peasant majority ('smychka'—the alliance between workers and peasants).

3. The Kronstadt Mutiny (March 1921): Sailors and workers at the Kronstadt naval base—previously hailed by Trotsky as the 'pride and glory of the revolution'—mutinied against Bolshevik authoritarianism, demanding freedom of speech, free elections to the soviets, and an end to grain requisitioning. Although the uprising was militarily crushed, it served as a stark political wake-up call ('the flash which lit up reality better than anything else') that the regime was losing its core working-class support.

4. Pragmatic Retreat to Ensure Regime Survival: Lenin viewed the NEP as a necessary tactical retreat. By reintroducing private enterprise in small businesses, ending requisitioning in favour of a fixed tax in kind (prodnalog), and legalising private trade of agricultural surpluses, the regime sought to stabilise the economy, secure the food supply, and consolidate political control while keeping the 'commanding heights' (heavy industry, banking, foreign trade) in state hands.

Marking scheme

Level 4 (9–10 marks): Explains two or more distinct factors with relevant historical detail, establishing links between them or assessing their relative significance to provide a cohesive causal explanation.
Level 3 (6–8 marks): Explains one or more distinct factors with appropriate historical knowledge and analytical clarity (e.g. explains economic failure and the Kronstadt Mutiny).
Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies factors or provides descriptive narrative about War Communism/NEP without analytical development of why the policy was introduced.
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Minimal or generalised response showing limited historical understanding.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

Question 2 · free-response

10 marks

Explain why the Kansas-Nebraska Act increased sectional tensions in the 1850s.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

A comprehensive explanation must address several key causal factors demonstrating how the legislation provoked northern outrage and southern defensiveness:

1. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: Proposed by Stephen Douglas to facilitate a transcontinental railroad route, the Act introduced 'popular sovereignty' to determine slavery's status in the Kansas and Nebraska territories. Because these lands lay north of the 36°30′ parallel, this effectively repealed the long-standing Missouri Compromise (1820). Many Northerners viewed this boundary as a sacred, permanent compact, and saw its repeal as definitive proof of an aggressive 'Slave Power' conspiracy attempting to expand slavery throughout the West.

2. Realignment and Breakdown of the Political Party System: The controversy shattered national party coalitions along regional lines. Northern and Southern Whigs split irrevocably, causing the collapse of the Whig Party, while Northern Democrats suffered heavy electoral defeats. In their place emerged the Republican Party, an explicitly sectional, northern-based organisation committed to halting the expansion of slavery, which Southerners perceived as a direct existential threat to their institutions.

3. Violent Escalation ('Bleeding Kansas'): By leaving the territorial status of slavery to a vote of local settlers, the Act sparked a frantic race between pro-slavery 'Border Ruffians' from Missouri and Free Soil/abolitionist emigrants financed by organisations such as the New England Emigrant Aid Company. This led to competitive elections marred by fraud, rival territorial legislatures, and armed guerrilla warfare (including the Pottawatomie Massacre and the Sacking of Lawrence), which deeply polarised public opinion across both North and South.

4. Intensification of Ideological and Congressional Hostility: The fallout extended directly into the national legislature, symbolised dramatically in 1856 by Preston Brooks' violent caning of Senator Charles Sumner following Sumner's 'Crime Against Kansas' speech. The praise Brooks received in the South and the outrage in the North hardened ideological divisions and made legislative compromise increasingly unviable.

Marking scheme

Level 4 (9–10 marks): Explains two or more distinct factors with relevant historical detail, demonstrating connections between the political repeal, party collapse, and physical violence in Kansas to provide a cohesive causal explanation.
Level 3 (6–8 marks): Explains one or more distinct factors with clear analytical explanation and factual support (e.g. explains the repeal of the 36°30′ line and the outbreak of Bleeding Kansas).
Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies factors or describes the Act's provisions without developed explanation of why it caused tensions to escalate.
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Minimal or generalised response with limited accuracy or relevance.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

Question 3 · essay

20 marks

'Military power was the decisive factor in achieving German unification by 1871.' How far do you agree?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Arguments supporting the view that military power was the decisive factor:
- Prussian military reforms under King Wilhelm I, Minister of War Albrecht von Roon, and Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke modernized the army through the needle gun, expanded conscription, and effective logistical use of railways.
- Decisive battlefield victories directly dismantled the obstacles to unification: the Danish War (1864) secured Schleswig-Holstein; the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and victory at Sadowa/Königgrätz expelled Austria from German affairs and dissolved the German Confederation; the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) and victory at Sedan rallied the southern German states into a united German Empire proclaimed at Versailles in January 1871.
- Bismarck himself acknowledged in his 'Blood and Iron' speech (1862) that the great questions of the day would be resolved by military force rather than parliamentary debate.

Arguments challenging the view / exploring alternative factors:
- Bismarck's diplomatic skill: isolating Austria through alliances with Italy and securing French neutrality at Biarritz (1865); isolating France diplomatically in 1870 and exploiting the Hohenzollern candidacy (Ems Telegram) to provoke France into declaring war, making Prussia appear the victim of French aggression.
- Economic foundations: the Zollverein (Customs Union), initiated in 1834, bound German states economically to Prussia while excluding Austria, creating industrial inter-dependence and Prussian economic hegemony.
- Nationalism and popular sentiment: the growth of German national identity among the middle classes, liberalism, and the legacy of 1848 provided the ideological demand and broad public support that Bismarck harnessed from above.
- Austrian weakness: political stagnation, financial strain, and multi-ethnic instability undermined Austria's ability to maintain its pre-eminent position in the German Confederation.

Conclusion / Evaluation:
Candidates should reach a substantiated judgement. A strong conclusion may argue that while Prussian military modernization and battlefield success were the indispensable instruments that executed unification, military force alone would have triggered foreign intervention or prolonged instability without Bismarck's diplomatic isolation of rivals and the pre-existing economic framework of the Zollverein.

Marking scheme

Level 5 (17–20 marks): Balanced, analytical, and sustained argument evaluating military power against alternative factors (diplomacy, economic factors, nationalism). Supported by precise, accurate historical evidence and leading to a well-reasoned, independent judgement.
Level 4 (13–16 marks): Balanced two-sided response with clear explanation of both the military factor and alternative explanations. Supported by good historical detail, though the final conclusion may be less fully developed.
Level 3 (9–12 marks): Developed one-sided argument focusing heavily on military power (or alternatives), or a two-sided attempt that is largely descriptive or lacks analytical depth and precise support.
Level 2 (5–8 marks): Identifies relevant points but lacks depth, presenting general narrative description of German unification with limited analysis.
Level 1 (1–4 marks): Generic statements or unsupported assertions with minimal historical relevance.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

Question 4 · essay

20 marks

'Opposition from the Supreme Court was the primary reason why Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced a Second New Deal in 1935.' How far do you agree?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Arguments supporting the view that Supreme Court opposition was the primary reason:
- Judicial rulings dismantled core pillars of the First New Deal: in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (May 1935), the Supreme Court unanimously declared the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional.
- The invalidation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in United States v. Butler (January 1936) confirmed the Court's hostility to early recovery legislation.
- These legal defeats forced Roosevelt to devise new, constitutionally sound legislation to replace invalidated programs, such as the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act, 1935) replacing Section 7(a) of the NIRA.

Arguments challenging the view / evaluating alternative reasons:
- Political challenges from the populist left: Huey Long's 'Share Our Wealth' movement, Father Charles Coughlin's National Union for Social Justice, and Dr. Francis Townsend's old-age pension plan gained millions of followers, threatening to split the Democratic electoral coalition ahead of the 1936 presidential election.
- Continuing economic hardship: despite the First New Deal, high unemployment persisted (around 20% in 1935), industrial recovery was sluggish, and poverty remained acute, demonstrating that the First New Deal had not achieved full economic recovery.
- Pressure from organised labour: widespread strikes in 1934 (e.g., San Francisco General Strike, textile workers' strike) demanded federal protection for collective bargaining and worker rights.
- A philosophical shift toward permanent structural reform: moving from temporary emergency relief and corporatist recovery (First New Deal) toward long-term security and welfare reform (Second New Deal), exemplified by the Social Security Act and the Works Progress Administration (WPA).

Conclusion / Evaluation:
Candidates should reach a substantiated judgement. A strong argument might conclude that while Supreme Court rulings destroyed key legislative instruments of the First New Deal and created an immediate imperative for new statutes, the radical political threat from populist alternatives and persistent social insecurity were more influential in determining the specific social-reform character (welfare, labour rights, social security) of the Second New Deal.

Marking scheme

Level 5 (17–20 marks): Balanced, sustained, and analytical response evaluating Supreme Court rulings alongside alternative pressures (populist political challenges, persistent unemployment, labour unrest, electoral calculations). Fully supported by precise historical detail leading to a reasoned conclusion.
Level 4 (13–16 marks): Balanced two-sided response assessing both judicial opposition and other factors, supported by good factual knowledge, though the final evaluation may lack the nuance of Level 5.
Level 3 (9–12 marks): Developed one-sided argument or a limited two-sided essay that describes Supreme Court decisions and other New Deal policies without sustained comparative analysis.
Level 2 (5–8 marks): Descriptive narrative of New Deal measures with limited or superficial links to the question prompt.
Level 1 (1–4 marks): Vague assertions or inaccurate narrative with minimal relevant historical knowledge.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

Wondering how well you actually know this?

thinka is an AI practice app for GCSE & A-Level students: unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Want more questions like this? Practise unlimited on thinka, instant answers included.

Start Practising Free