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

### Indicative Content

#### Points of Agreement / Similarities:
- Impact on Smaller/Independent Businesses: Both sources recognize that large trusts have displaced small, independent producers and concentrated market power in the hands of major corporations.
- Economic Dominance: Both acknowledge that industrial consolidation has fundamentally transformed the organization of American industry and eliminated traditional open market competition.

#### Points of Disagreement / Differences:
- Impact on Consumers and Prices: Source A asserts that trusts extract unfair tribute from every household and arbitrarily dictate prices, whereas Source B argues that consolidation has dramatically reduced prices (e.g. kerosene prices falling by half) and eliminated waste for the benefit of ordinary families.
- Methods and Character of Consolidation: Source A portrays trusts as predatory, coercive, and corrupting (using secret rebates and political influence), whereas Source B depicts consolidation as a natural, scientific, and beneficial economic evolution.
- Socio-Political Consequences: Source A views industrial concentration as a direct threat to democracy and republican values, while Source B portrays it as a positive national asset that creates stable jobs, higher wages, and global industrial leadership.

#### Evaluation and Contextual Explanation (Explaining Similarities/Differences):
- Provenance of Source A: Written by an investigative journalist (muckraker) during the height of the Progressive movement. The purpose was to expose corporate malpractices (similar to Ida Tarbell’s exposure of Standard Oil) and mobilize public opinion and politicians to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and regulate monopolistic power.
- Provenance of Source B: Given by a corporate executive addressing a Chamber of Commerce in 1905. The purpose is to defend big business against growing Progressive regulatory pressure, appealing to efficiency, modernization, and commercial self-interest.
- Contextual Understanding: Candidates can contextualize the debate around the Gilded Age rise of trusts, President Theodore Roosevelt's 'trust-busting' policies versus the 'rule of reason', and the fundamental Progressive tension between corporate efficiency and democratic equity.

Level 4 (12–15 marks):
- Makes a developed comparison of both similarities and differences between the two sources.
- Explains why similarities and differences exist using contextual awareness and evaluation of source provenance (nature, origin, purpose, audience).

Level 3 (8–11 marks):
- Compares the views in the sources by identifying both similarities and differences.
- Supported by accurate, direct textual references and quotations from both sources.
- Source evaluation/contextual explanation may be limited or implicit.

Level 2 (4–7 marks):
- Identifies similarities OR differences only, supported by source content.
- OR identifies similarities and differences through unsupported assertion or generalisation.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
- Describes/paraphrases source content with little or no valid comparative focus.

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

Contextual Analysis and Argument Structure:

1. Sources Supporting the Statement (Sources A and C):
- Source A: Calonne explicitly asserts that the deficit cannot be resolved without ending the tax exemptions of the nobility and clergy, arguing that the Third Estate is already overtaxed and that proportional taxation of privileged wealth is the only viable remedy.
Evaluation: Calonne's purpose is to persuade the Assembly of Notables to surrender their fiscal exemptions. While he had a vested political interest in deflecting blame from his own borrowing policies, his analysis accurately reflects the structural weakness of the French tax base, where the wealthiest landholders were largely exempt from direct taxes like the taille.
- Source C: The English merchant provides direct observation of fiscal inequality, noting that the peasantry is impoverished while extensive seigneurial and church lands pay negligible taxes. He explicitly attributes state bankruptcy and mounting public fury to the stubborn refusal of the privileged classes to surrender exemptions.
Evaluation: As a foreign observer, the author offers a detached perspective without direct political ambition, though English observers often viewed French institutions through the lens of Britain's own parliamentary taxation system.

2. Sources Challenging the Statement (Sources B and D):
- Source B: The Parlement of Paris rejects the claim that exemptions caused the deficit, blaming instead royal prodigality, excessive borrowing, ministerial mismanagement, and lack of fiscal accountability, arguing that reform must come from royal expenditure cuts.
Evaluation: The Parlement is an interested party seeking to protect noble privileges and assert judicial checks on royal absolutism. While its defense of 'sacred property rights' masks self-interest, its criticism of unchecked crown expenditure and lack of accounting transparency reflects genuine structural flaws in the Ancien Régime's financial management.
- Source D: Necker identifies external debt (specifically the immense cost of the American Revolutionary War) and the collapse of credit and administrative confidence as the primary causes of the crisis, arguing that the nation possessed adequate wealth and that tax resistance was not the sole trigger.
Evaluation: Necker sought to defend his own ministerial record (having published the Compte rendu au roi in 1781 claiming a surplus). Nevertheless, his point regarding the burden of wartime loans and high interest payments is historically valid, as debt servicing consumed over 50% of royal revenue by 1788.

Conclusion / Synthesis:
While Sources A and C show that the structural resistance of the privileged orders prevented essential tax reform, Sources B and D demonstrate that the crisis was exacerbated by massive wartime debt, royal mismanagement, and the collapse of state credit. A sustained judgement will balance these factors, concluding that the refusal of the privileged orders made an existing debt crisis unresolvable, precipitating the monarchy's ultimate bankruptcy.

Levels of Response:

Level 5 (21–25 marks):
- Evaluates the sources in their historical context to reach a sustained, balanced, and supported judgement.
- Uses all four sources effectively, integrating contextual knowledge of the French pre-revolutionary financial crisis (e.g., Calonne's 1787 proposals, Parlement resistance, costs of the American War of Independence, debt servicing).
- Thoroughly weighs evidence supporting and challenging the proposition.

Level 4 (16–20 marks):
- Evaluates sources using nature, origin, and purpose to both support and challenge the view.
- Demonstrates good contextual knowledge, showing clear awareness of why different contemporaries held opposing views.
- Covers all four sources (or three in depth with reference to the fourth).

Level 3 (11–15 marks):
- Uses source content directly to provide arguments both supporting (Sources A and C) and challenging (Sources B and D) the statement.
- Lacks developed source evaluation or contextual critique (relies on face-value interpretation).

Level 2 (6–10 marks):
- Uses content from one or two sources only, or argues one-sidedly (only supporting or only challenging).
- Descriptive with limited analysis of the claim.

Level 1 (1–5 marks):
- Paraphrases or copies source text without direct engagement with the question prompt.

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

A strong causal explanation should explain how economic, social, and political pressures forced Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership to abandon War Communism:

1. Economic Breakdown under War Communism:
- Heavy industry and agricultural output had plummeted far below pre-World War I levels by 1921.
- Hyperinflation rendered currency worthless, barter was rampant, and transport networks were paralysed.
- Forced grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka) disincentivised peasants from producing surpluses, leading to catastrophic crop failures and widespread famine across the Volga region.

2. Peasant Uprisings and Rural Discontent:
- Peasants fiercely resisted requisition squads through passive resistance (reducing acreage) and armed revolt.
- The Tambov Rebellion (1920–1921), led by Alexander Antonov, mobilised tens of thousands of armed peasants and posed a serious military challenge to Soviet control in the countryside, proving that force alone could not extract grain.

3. The Kronstadt Mutiny (March 1921):
- Sailors at the Kronstadt naval fortress—previously celebrated by Trotsky as the 'heroes of the revolution'—rebelled against Bolshevik dictatorship, demanding freedom of speech, democratic soviets, and the abolition of grain requisitioning.
- Lenin described the mutiny as the 'flash which lit up reality more than anything else', revealing that the regime had lost the confidence of its core working-class and military supporters.

4. Pragmatic Political Strategy:
- Lenin recognised that without securing food supplies for urban workers and rebuilding the alliance (smychka) between the peasantry and the urban proletariat, the Bolsheviks would lose power.
- The NEP allowed private enterprise in retail and small-scale manufacturing, replaced arbitrary requisitioning with a fixed tax in kind (prodnalog), and permitted peasants to sell surplus grain on the open market, while the state maintained control over the 'commanding heights' of the economy (heavy industry, banking, foreign trade).

Level 4 (9–10 marks): Connects factors to reach a reasoned conclusion; demonstrates clear links between causes.
- Explains multiple distinct factors (e.g. economic failure of War Communism, rural peasant unrest, the Kronstadt Mutiny, political necessity of regime survival) with precise contextual knowledge and demonstrates how they interacted to make the introduction of the NEP urgent and unavoidable.

Level 3 (6–8 marks): Explains distinct causal factor(s) supported by accurate knowledge.
- Explains at least two valid causal factors leading to the adoption of the NEP (e.g. economic collapse and peasant rebellions/Kronstadt).

Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies causal factors or describes events.
- Identifies reasons for the NEP (e.g. mentions War Communism was unpopular or that there was famine) but lacks developed explanation or depth of supporting evidence.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic or asserted points.
- Provides vague assertions or narrative without clear causal explanation.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

A focused causal explanation should identify and explain the key mechanisms through which Stephen Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act deepened the divide between North and South:

1. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820:
- By introducing the principle of popular sovereignty in the territories north of the 36°30′ parallel, the Act effectively repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in those regions.
- Northerners viewed this as a betrayal of a sacred national compact and proof of an aggressive 'Slave Power conspiracy' intent on expanding slavery nationwide.

2. Territorial Conflict and 'Bleeding Kansas':
- Popular sovereignty turned the settlement of Kansas into a violent race between pro-slavery 'border ruffians' from Missouri and Northern Free-State settlers supported by the New England Emigrant Aid Company.
- Fraudulent elections led to the establishment of two rival governments (the pro-slavery legislature at Lecompton and the Free-State legislature at Topeka).
- Violent confrontations escalated, including the sack of Lawrence (May 1856) and John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre, demonstrating that compromise over territorial slavery had collapsed into open armed conflict.

3. Political Realignment and Rise of the Republican Party:
- The Act fractured national political parties along geographic fault lines. The Whig Party disintegrating as Southern Whigs aligned with Southern Democrats and Northern Whigs defected.
- Northern Democrats suffered massive losses in the 1854 midterms, weakening the last major national institution holding North and South together.
- The political vacuum led to the formation of the Republican Party (1854), an entirely Northern, sectional party dedicated to halting the westward expansion of slavery.

4. Polarization of National Politics and Rhetoric:
- The crisis spilled over into Congress itself, crystallised by the brutal caning of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner by South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks on the Senate floor in May 1856, hardening emotional and ideological hostility across both sections.

Level 4 (9–10 marks): Connects factors to reach a reasoned conclusion; demonstrates clear links between causes.
- Explains multiple causal factors (e.g. repeal of the Missouri Compromise, violence in 'Bleeding Kansas', collapse of national parties and emergence of the Republican Party, polarization of political rhetoric) with precise historical evidence and explains how these factors interacted to escalate sectional hostility.

Level 3 (6–8 marks): Explains distinct causal factor(s) supported by accurate knowledge.
- Explains at least two distinct reasons why the Act heightened tensions (e.g. popular sovereignty triggering violent clashes in Kansas and the repeal of the 36°30′ line provoking Northern outrage).

Level 2 (3–5 marks): Identifies causal factors or describes the Act.
- Identifies reasons (e.g. states that people fought over slavery in Kansas or mentions the new Republican party) without fully explaining how these directly exacerbated sectional conflict.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic or asserted points.
- Provides isolated or vague statements with limited historical relevance.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable content.

A strong response should address both sides of the proposition before reaching an evaluative conclusion:

1. Arguments supporting the view (Weaknesses of opponents):
- The Provisional Government suffered from inherent illegitimacy as an unelected, temporary body, locked in 'Dual Power' (dvoevlastie) with the Petrograd Soviet, which held real operational control via Order No. 1.
- Inability/unwillingness to resolve key popular grievances: Alexander Kerensky and the government insisted on honouring wartime commitments to the Allies, resulting in the disastrous June Offensive of 1917, mass desertions, and economic chaos.
- Delay of land redistribution until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly alienated the peasantry, leading to widespread illegal land seizures and peasant unrest.
- The Kornilov Affair (August 1917) completely shattered the government's credibility: Kerensky alienated the military high command by accusing Kornilov of treason and simultaneously empowered the Bolsheviks by releasing their leaders and arming the Red Guard to defend the capital.
- Moderate socialist parties (Mensheviks and Right SRs) lost popular support due to their association with the coalition government's failures.

2. Arguments challenging the view (Strengths and actions of the Bolsheviks):
- Lenin's ideological leadership and tactical flexibility: his return in April 1917 and publication of the April Theses provided clear, radical slogans ('Peace, Land, Bread' and 'All Power to the Soviets') that directly aligned with popular aspirations.
- Trotsky's organizational genius: as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and head of the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC), he disguised the insurrection as a defence of the Soviet congress rather than a purely partisan coup, meticulously directing the seizure of key strategic points (bridges, post offices, railway stations, power plants).
- Superior party discipline, effective propaganda (e.g. Pravda), and expanding grassroots influence within factory committees and garrison soviets.

3. Conclusion / Synthesis:
- A top-level judgement should weigh the comparative importance of both dimensions: while opponent failure created the indispensable structural crisis and power vacuum, it was the Bolsheviks' unique radical clarity, tactical discipline, and decisive leadership that enabled them—rather than any other group—to exploit the situation and seize state power in October 1917.

Level 5 (17–20 marks): Sustained, criteria-led judgement with precisely selected supporting evidence. Evaluates the relative significance of opponent failures versus Bolshevik strengths, demonstrating clear historical understanding and nuanced balance.

Level 4 (13–16 marks): Balanced two-sided argument supported by relevant historical evidence. Considers both opponent weaknesses (e.g. Kerensky, WWI, land, Kornilov) and Bolshevik strengths (e.g. Lenin, Trotsky, MRC), though the final judgement may lack full development.

Level 3 (9–12 marks): Addresses the prompt with explanatory points on one side or a limited attempt at balance with generic supporting evidence. Demonstrates sound understanding of the 1917 context but lacks critical depth.

Level 2 (5–8 marks): Descriptive narrative of the events of 1917 or one-sided assertions with limited accurate historical evidence.

Level 1 (1–4 marks): Basic or generalised points with little direct relevance to the question.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

A comprehensive response should evaluate the role of white Southern resistance alongside other contributing structural and political factors:

1. Arguments supporting the view (White Southern resistance):
- Violent intimidation and terror: Paramilitary organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, and later the White League and Red Shirts carried out systematic violence, lynchings, and voter intimidation targeting freedmen, carpetbaggers, and scalawags (e.g., Colfax Massacre 1873).
- Political 'Redemption': Southern Democrats exploited racial solidarity and economic leverage to systematically recapture state legislatures throughout the 1870s.
- Economic coercion: Planters maintained white supremacy and economic dependency through the crop-lien and sharecropping systems, severely limiting African American economic independence.
- Cultural and institutional refusal to accept racial equality, ensuring that legal equality granted by Reconstruction Acts and constitutional amendments was actively undermined locally.

2. Arguments challenging the view (Other key causes of failure):
- Northern fatigue and shifting priorities: The Panic of 1873 shifted northern focus toward industrial depression, currency debates, and labour unrest, diminishing public appetite for sustained military intervention in the South.
- Political compromise and federal withdrawal: The contested 1876 presidential election led to the Compromise of 1877, in which Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew the remaining federal troops, leaving southern Republicans without military protection.
- Judicial hostility: Conservative Supreme Court decisions systematically gutted Reconstruction legislation (e.g., the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) narrowed privileges and immunities; United States v. Cruikshank (1876) ruled that the 14th Amendment applied only to state actions, not private violence).
- Inherent limitations of Radical Reconstruction policy: Failure to enact comprehensive land redistribution (the rejection of '40 acres and a mule') left freedpeople economically vulnerable.

3. Conclusion / Synthesis:
- A sustained conclusion should evaluate whether Southern resistance was only able to succeed because federal determination, political will, and judicial support collapsed, or whether local resistance made true long-term transformation impossible without an indefinite, politically unsustainable military occupation.

Level 5 (17–20 marks): Sustained, criteria-led judgement with precisely selected supporting evidence. Evaluates white Southern resistance in relation to federal exhaustion, judicial decisions, and political compromises (Compromise of 1877), showing a sophisticated understanding of historical causation.

Level 4 (13–16 marks): Balanced two-sided argument supported by appropriate historical evidence. Discusses both Southern resistance (KKK, Black Codes, Redemption) and other factors (Northern fatigue, Panic of 1873, Supreme Court rulings), reaching a logical conclusion.

Level 3 (9–12 marks): Explains relevant factors on one or both sides with sound factual knowledge (e.g., KLAN violence, troop removal), but lacks analytical depth or balanced evaluation.

Level 2 (5–8 marks): Descriptive account of Reconstruction with basic narrative details; lacks evaluative focus on the prompt.

Level 1 (1–4 marks): General assertions with minimal accurate historical knowledge.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.