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?
Analyse and evaluate three representations of history: Protests against the Vietnam War
"In conclusion, with all three of my chosen criteria taken into account I believe the representation that best represents the way in which people in the USA reacted to the Vietnam War is representation 1. The representation was the most comprehensive of the three offering an overview of the movement though it failed to tell a balanced story, representation 2 and 3 were less comprehensive with the authors of those representations selecting details to suit their own message. Representation 1 was also the most objective due to its purpose, which is to inform, on the other hand the other representations were biased due to their purposes, which is to provoke debate and entertain. Finally, representation 1 was undoubtedly the most accurate with information easily verified by other sources whereas the other representations contain inaccuracy."
Discuss the effectiveness of US tactics such as 'defoliation' and 'search and destroy'
"In conclusion, though the US were able to carry out successful search and destroy missions, the body count is questionable and in some instances the Vietcong where able to regroup and returned after the US had left captured areas abating the change produced by the tactic. The tactic also had severe drawbacks in that civilians were accidently and sometimes purposefully killed, leading the Vietnamese people to resent the allied forces and support the NLF and was therefore not greatly effective.
On the other hand, defoliation was more effective as it hindered the NLF food and coverage in forested areas and brought around a greater level of change than the search and destroy tactic. However, it too suffered drawbacks in the effect it had on the civilians and the country of Vietnam, so the tactic was not as effective because of the damage it caused destroying the very people the tactic was supposed to be protecting."