Imagine this: you’ve studied for weeks, memorised diagrams, and perfected your economic theories—only to stare blankly at a daunting 25-mark question during the exam. Sound familiar? You’re not alone.
These high-value questions can singlehandedly lift or sink your H2 Economics grade. But the good news? Mastering them is easier than you think.
With the right strategy, you can tackle even the toughest questions with confidence, clarity, and precision. Keep reading, because this step-by-step approach will forever change the way you handle 25-mark Economics questions.
Understanding the Anatomy of a 25-Mark H2 Economics Question
These questions aren’t just long — they’re loaded. If you don’t understand what kind of 25-mark question you’re facing, you’re basically walking into the exam blindfolded. Let’s break it down so you don’t get caught off guard.
What Examiners Really Want to See (and What They Don’t)
Examiners want to see clear thinking and strong argument flow. That means you’re not just stating theories, but applying them logically to the question at hand.
They don’t want a brain dump. You’ll lose marks if you go off-topic or waffle. So avoid generic conclusions like “It depends” — unless you follow through with a solid explanation.
Here’s what gets you into Band 1:
- Sharp intro that defines the question
- Solid economic reasoning (PEEL helps)
- Accurate, labelled diagrams
- Balanced evaluation that shows insight
Keep your answer relevant, structured, and economically sound. No fluff. No kopi shop debate style
Types of 25-Mark Questions: Comparative, Policy-Based, and Evaluative
There are three main types:
- Comparative – Weigh two sides. E.g. fiscal vs monetary. Cover both, then evaluate which works better.
- Policy-based – Should gov do X? Focus on real-world application, especially in Singapore’s context.
- Evaluative – Open-ended “To what extent…” style. Explore both views, then take a clear stance.
Once you know the type, you’ll know the strategy. Simple as that.
Step 1 – Analysing the Question Carefully
Before you rush into writing, pause and read the question twice. Seriously. Many students lose marks not because they lack content, but because they answered the wrong question. This first step is where you set the direction — and trust me, it matters.
H3: Identifying Key Command Words (Discuss, Evaluate, Assess)
These words tell you what the examiner expects, so don’t skim over them.
- Discuss → Balanced analysis of multiple viewpoints. No one-sided essays here.
- Evaluate → Analyse + judge. You must weigh pros and cons, then take a stand.
- Assess → Similar to evaluate, but usually asks how strong or effective something is.
Miss the command word and you risk writing a beautifully wrong answer.
Spotting Keywords and Question Scope (Micro vs. Macro, Local vs. Global)
Next, look at what they’re asking — and from which angle.
Is it micro (like market failure, price mechanism) or macro (like growth, inflation)?
Are they asking about Singapore specifically, or in general?
Example:
- “Assess the effectiveness of income policies in Singapore” → macro, local.
- “To what extent does price elasticity affect total revenue?” → micro, general.
Your case studies, examples, and even diagrams should match the scope. Don’t go macro when they want micro — that’s asking to lose marks.
Avoiding Common Misinterpretations Right from the Start
Sometimes we think we understand the question, but we’re actually off-track.
A classic mistake? Zooming in on one keyword and ignoring the rest. Just because you see “inflation” doesn’t mean it’s a general essay on inflation — read the full question to catch the nuance.
If you’re unsure, paraphrase the question in your own words before planning. It helps to anchor your thoughts and avoid wild tangents halfway through.
Step 2 – Planning Your Answer (Spend 5 Minutes Wisely!)
Don’t skip this step. Even if you’re panicking. A quick 5-minute plan can save you from going off-track or running out of time. Think of it as your GPS for the essay — it keeps you focused and structured.
Structuring a Brief but Clear Outline
Jot down your intro, main points, evaluation areas, and conclusion — just short bullet points will do.
Ask yourself:
- What’s my stand?
- What are my main points (and counterpoints)?
- Where can I insert diagrams or examples?
This mini roadmap gives your essay a solid spine — no more messy, last-minute scrambling.
Deciding How Many Arguments You Need
For most 25-markers, 2 to 3 strong points + evaluation is the sweet spot.
Don’t aim for 5 weak points just to fill space. It’s better to go deep on a few arguments than to skim over many. One solid paragraph with proper analysis and evaluation easily beats three shallow ones.
Allocating Your Time: Analysis vs. Evaluation Balance
Here’s a rough time guide:
- Intro: 2 mins
- Main body: 20 mins
- Conclusion: 3 mins
Within each paragraph, aim for a 60:40 split — 60% analysis, 40% evaluation. Don’t leave evaluation until the end. Weave it in throughout your essay so your argument feels mature and balanced.
Step 3 – Crafting a Strong Introduction
Your introduction doesn’t need to be long. But it does need to be sharp. This is your first impression — make it clear, relevant, and confident. Set the stage, don’t ramble.
How to Write an Introduction that Sets Up Your Entire Answer
Start by briefly explaining what the question is really asking. One to two sentences is enough.
Then hint at the direction you’re taking — not your full argument, just a sneak peek. Think of it like a movie trailer. It should give your marker a sense of what’s coming, without spoiling the whole thing.
Example:
“This essay will explore whether inflation is always harmful to an economy by examining both demand-pull and cost-push scenarios, before evaluating its impact under different macroeconomic conditions.”
Clean, focused, no fluff.
Defining Key Terms Clearly and Concisely
Don’t skip this! If the question contains terms like “efficiency,” “externalities,” or “equity,” define them briefly.
One sentence is enough. You’re showing the marker: “Yes, I know what I’m talking about.”
But don’t throw in textbook definitions just for show. Only define what’s necessary to set up your answer properly.
Stating Your Argument Direction (Without Giving Away Too Much)
You don’t have to write “In this essay, I will argue…” like you’re doing O-Level English.
Instead, hint at your stand subtly — it shows confidence. Say something like “While inflation is often seen as negative, its impact depends heavily on the causes and context.”
You’re giving a taste of your evaluation without diving into it yet. That’s how you build a professional-sounding intro without sounding robotic.
Step 4 – Writing the Main Body: Mastering Your Analysis
This is where most of your marks are made — or lost. The body of your essay needs to show examiners that you can think like an economist, not just copy notes. Logic, structure, and clarity are your best friends here.
Building Logical Chains of Reasoning (PEEL Method)
Use the PEEL method:
Point → Explain → Example → Link.
Make your argument, explain the economic logic, support it with evidence, then link it back to the question. That last step — the link — is where a lot of students lose marks.
No matter how good your point is, if you don’t relate it back to the question, the examiner can’t award full credit.
Integrating Diagrams that Actually Add Value (and Marks!)
Don’t just throw in a diagram for the sake of it. Examiners are not looking for artwork — they’re looking for diagrams that support your analysis.
- Label everything clearly (axes, curves, equilibrium points)
- Make sure it matches your argument
- Refer to it directly in your paragraph (e.g. “As seen in Fig. 1, a subsidy lowers the marginal cost…”)
Pro tip: If your diagram can replace a chunk of explanation, you’re using it right.
Using Relevant Examples to Boost Your Credibility
Real-world examples = instant credibility.
Instead of saying “government intervention can work,” say:
“In Singapore, the COE system is a clear example of managing negative externalities from car usage.”
You don’t need many — just one or two solid ones that fit the question. Bonus points if they’re current or local.
And yes, using Singapore examples shows awareness of context — which examiners love.
Step 5 – Delivering Insightful Evaluation (Critical for Band 1)
This is where good students get separated from the top scorers. Solid analysis gets you halfway there, but it’s the evaluation that pushes you into Band 1. If you’re just saying “it depends” with no follow-through, you’re leaving marks on the table.
Moving Beyond Superficial ‘It Depends’ Arguments
We’ve all done it — dropping a casual “it depends” and thinking we’ve evaluated.
But examiners want more than that. What exactly does it depend on? The size of the policy effect? The time frame? The country’s structure?
Instead of saying:
“It depends on the type of policy.”
Try:
“The effectiveness of fiscal policy depends on the economy’s spare capacity — in a deep recession, multipliers are stronger, making fiscal expansion more impactful.”
See the difference? One is vague, the other shows real economic thinking.
Using the PJED Framework to Structure Your Evaluation Clearly
If you tend to ramble during evaluation, try PJED:
- Perspective – From whose point of view? (Govt? Consumer? Small firms?)
- Judgement – Which option is better and why?
- Evidence – Any data, theory or case to support your view?
- Drawbacks – What’s the trade-off or limitation?
PJED helps keep your evaluation balanced and sharp — not just “I think X is better because I like it.”
Addressing Limitations and Assumptions Explicitly
This is an underrated way to show examiner-level maturity.
Ask yourself: What assumptions are you making? That consumers behave rationally? That ceteris paribus holds true?
Calling these out shows depth. For example:
“This argument assumes perfect information, but in reality, consumers may lack awareness of subsidies, limiting effectiveness.”
That one line alone could win you credit most students miss.
Step 6 – Concluding Your Answer Powerfully
You’re almost at the finish line. Now’s not the time to collapse. A good conclusion doesn’t just repeat — it wraps up with purpose. You want to leave the marker thinking, “Wah, this one really knows their stuff.”
Summarising Without Repetition (Answering the “So What?”)
Don’t rehash every point you’ve already made — it’s a waste of space.
Instead, sum up your argument in one or two lines, then directly answer the question in a meaningful way.
Ask yourself: What’s the final takeaway? What’s my judgement?
For example:
“While both demand-side and supply-side policies play a role, in the context of Singapore’s open economy and ageing population, supply-side strategies offer more sustainable long-term benefits.”
Short, clear, and it answers the question head-on.
Leaving a Lasting Impression on the Examiner
Here’s your secret weapon — end with a thought that shows maturity.
It could be:
- A reminder of the trade-offs
- A reference to real-world application
- A future consideration (e.g. long-run impacts, political feasibility)
Example:
“However, any policy must also consider political constraints and public support, which often shape outcomes more than theory suggests.”
Just one thoughtful line like that can bump you into Band 1. Because it shows depth, not just memorisation.
Final Thoughts – Turning Your Strategy into Consistent Results
You’ve made it through the breakdown — now it’s time to apply what you’ve learnt. Remember, doing well in H2 Economics isn’t about who studies the most hours. It’s about who writes with intention and strategy.
Why the Right Technique Beats Raw Effort Every Time
You can memorise 10 essays and still fumble in the exam if you don’t understand how to approach a question.
Technique matters.
If you follow the steps — analyse the question properly, plan smart, structure clearly, and evaluate maturely — you’ll consistently score well. Even on questions you didn’t “study for”.
Examiners aren’t marking effort. They’re marking answers that are focused, balanced, and thoughtful.
Next Steps for Immediate Improvement
Want to see results fast? Here’s what to do:
- Grab a past 25-mark question and apply the 6-step method.
- Time yourself — planning and all.
- Compare your answer to the LORMS bands (or ask your teacher to help).
- Rinse and repeat weekly.
If you need more help, don’t be shy to join consults, group study, or get H2 Econs tuition. Sometimes all it takes is one session with the right person to “click”.
Facebook