Read from every mark scheme in the collection
“Explain” does not mean the same thing in Economics as it does in Geography. One wants three separate points; the other rewards the opposite. These are the marking structures that turn up across many different topics, read out of the mark schemes so you can see them being applied.
For a 3-mark IGCSE Economics 'explain one reason/effect/advantage/disadvantage' question, name one point and develop it. Three things decide the marks. First, naming a relevant reason is a gate, not a step: without it the other two marks cannot be awarded at all. Second, only one reason is ever credited - a student who writes three reasons instead of one developed reason scores 1. Third, the mark scheme offers a mark for putting the answer in the scenario's own context, and taking it is the reliable route, but it is not compulsory: the board awards all three marks for a detailed explanation of the economic theory without context. Develop one point; do not list.
This is the board’s own published rule — examiners' reports, not the specification. Pearson's examiners' reports state this structure directly and repeatedly (2019, 2022, 2023). The specification publishes a different one - "a statement of fact, with two further expansion points", with context supplied by the question rather than earned - so the board contradicts itself, and the reports are what the marking follows.
Found across 8 different topics and 11 sittings: cost of production, exchange rate, externality market failure, gdp growth, inflation, monopoly market structure, subsidy tax, tariff trade.
In IAL Geography the tariff decides how you are marked, not the command word. Every 6-mark question in the collection is levels-marked and every question from 1 to 5 marks is point-marked - 171 mark-scheme blocks, no exceptions. So at 6 marks there is no per-point tariff to hit: write connected prose and develop every idea you raise, because undeveloped points are exactly what holds an answer at Level 2. Develop what you write - but do not write less: the top level asks for a broad range of ideas that are also fully developed, and a narrow answer is Level 1 language. At 4 marks the same command word is point-marked and the list you were avoiding is what scores.
Partly published by the board — specification defines the command word; the level grids are per-paper. The specification publishes an "Explain" definition that supports depth, and each mark scheme states that markers apply level descriptors rather than a point tariff. No standalone published levels grid was found, so the grids are cited from the mark schemes themselves.
Found across 6 different topics and 11 sittings: climate change, coasts, flooding, migration, population, tectonics.
For a 3-mark 'explain' question in a science subject (Biology, Chemistry or Physics), do not write three independent facts - write a chain where each step follows from the one before: name the cause/property, state the mechanism it produces, then state the resulting effect. Boards phrase this in the mark scheme as literal linking words ('therefore', 'as a result', 'hence') between marking points; a response that jumps straight to the final effect without stating the intermediate mechanism forfeits that middle mark even if the final answer is correct.
This one is ours, not the board’s — searched the IAS/IAL science taxonomy; not found. Pearson publishes only that "an explanation requires a justification/exemplification of a point" and "must contain some element of reasoning/justification". That is point-plus-reason. The three-link cause -> mechanism -> effect chain is ours, not the board's.
Found across 19 different topics and 105 sittings: diffusion osmosis transport, digestion, disease immunity, ecology food chains, enzymes, excretion kidney, photosynthesis, respiration, bonding, enthalpy.
This one is not a way of thinking about a question - it is how any calculation is converted into marks, whatever the subject.
For a 2-mark 'calculate', write the substitution or formula down before the answer. The first mark is for that step alone and survives a wrong final number; the second is carried forward from it, so a wrong intermediate value still earns both marks if the next step is done correctly on it. Then check the subject you are in, because the rules invert. Edexcel Physics: a unit is part of the answer - a missing or wrong one normally costs the final mark - and a correct answer with no working still scores full marks unless the question says "show that". Edexcel Mathematics: the accuracy mark depends on the method mark being earned, so working is how you claim it, and a missing unit is usually not penalised. One habit is right in one subject and wrong in the other.
This is the board’s own published rule — the general marking guidance printed in every mark scheme. Method-then-accuracy is documented board policy, published in full by Edexcel (M marks, A marks, ft/ecf) and present in a third form at Cambridge ("1 mark for working... 1 mark for answer"). It survives three boards.
Found across 7 different topics and 87 sittings: moles, cost of production, elasticity, gdp growth, unemployment, circuits, energy.
Every question paper in the collection was matched to its mark scheme, and each sub-part reduced to its command word and mark structure. A pattern is listed only if it appears across at least three different topics, can be stated as something that changes how you answer, and does not match most of the subject's questions. Patterns failing any of the three were discarded rather than reported. Where an exam board also sets out one of these structures in its own assessment guidance, the mark schemes are that rule being applied — which makes it more reliable, not less.