clioclio:Can you show us an example of an attempt by your son to write the conclusion?
Usually they have to address both factors and explain the various role of the two factors play in the topic at hand.
e.g..
\"Trotsky's unpopularity undermined his credibility and enabled Stalin to gain the upper hand/advantage in the struggle for power, it was ultimately Stalin's manipulations that enabled him to oust/eliminate his opponents and emerge as the leader of Soviet Union after Lenin's death.
(main argument: Trotsky unpopularity helped Stalin but didn guarantee Stalin rise to power--it mainly took Stalin's cunning to his advantage to rise to power)
The conclusion my son did was for this question: \"Khrushchev became the next leader of the USSR because his opponents were weak\". How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.\"
This is what he wrote:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement that Khrushchev became the next leader of USSR because his opponents were weak. While I acknowledge that his opponents' weakness did help him in his rise to power to some extent as it caused them to be expelled which removed Khrushchev's opposition, it definitely did not guarentee it. Khrushchev's agricultural policy not only managed to eliminate one of Khrushchev's biggest opponent, but also allowed him to gain support from the people- something which his weak opponents could not lead to. It also demonstrated his manipulation, which would also have led to how Khrushchev could be able to exploit his opponents' weakness to eliminate them
Due to his agricultural policy having a much larger impact and being the root cause on how Khrushchev could become the next leader of the USSR, I disagree with this statement.