Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
- Do they use key words from the title or question?
- Do they answer the question directly?
- Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
William was successful at Hastings because of his leadership of the Normans.(TM) To what extent do you agree?
"In conclusion, although William was a brilliant leader of the Normans his leadership was not the most important reason the Normans defeated the English at Hastings. It is true that he was a brilliant leader but I think that the most important reason was that the English were completely exhausted from the days of fighting and marching prior to the battle. This factor is the most important because the English were just not ready for another huge battle in the space of a few weeks. The Normans had been ready and rested for months so they had a huge advantage over the exhausted English. The other reasons did play a part in the defeat I think that if the English did not have to fight off Hardrada first, they would have beaten William. The Normans did have the cavalry and Harolds tactics were poor but the cavalry were largely ineffective against the English line until Haralds tactics came into play with his inability to control his men meant that the English came off the hill and so the cavalry found it easy to pick them off. Overall the most important reason was because the English were completely exhausted."
In 1815 the possibility of a united Italy was slight(TM) to what extent do you agree with this?
"From the information I have gathered I conclude that I agree with the statement to a certain extent but not entirely. There are many reasons that the chance of a United Italy are slight and these reasons generally outweigh the arguments that its not. Most of the arguments against the statement also only hinder the arguments for it rather than exclude them completely. However even with this I fell that the way in which many of the states were run, soon enough the people would look to push for a United Italy as it would definitely be in their own personal interests."
Assess the relative importance of the long term and short term causes of the First World War
"In conclusion, the main long term causes of the war were the imperialistic and military natures of the Great Powers. The attempt to gain international prestige (particularly in the Balkans) was bound to lead to conflict. Although the Alliance system can be seen as a major factor, I think individual pacts of alliances grew stronger in response to foreign threats, particularly the aggressive nature of German expansionism. Therefore I don't this the Alliance System and its weak structure is as important as other causes. Obviously, the ultimate short term cause of war was the spark in the July Crisis, 1914. However, this escalation of the war was intricately linked to long term causes, such as the idea of going to war instead of risking national prestige. Finally, it is wrong to blame Germany for the ultimate cause of the war: responsibility should be chiefly held in the other Powers too, mainly Central, such as Austria and Serbia in their Balkans conducts."