Identifying the content words is easy. They are ‘capitalism’ and ‘class inequality’. Note that there are three concepts that will all need to be defined: capitalism, class and inequality. There is no explicit process word, however: the action required is implicit in the term ‘does’. This is a discuss-type question, where you need to set out how and why capitalism does or doesn’t require class inequality. You will need to put both sides of the argument, but it would appear that you are expected to favour one of them. However, you shouldn’t overlook the very important term ‘require’, which adds a very specific determinant to the discussion.

The content words are ‘US film industry’, ‘key features of’ and ‘before, during and after WWII’. ‘Examine’ is the process word. This is a very helpful question, in terms of setting out the structure of your essay, provided that you understand the tasks required by the process word and implied by the formulation of the rest of the question. The essay is likely to have three main sections organised chronologically, but it will also have a section outlining what is meant by ‘industry’ – and the aspects of the film industry that the author intends to cover (funding? distribution? jobs? relation to the wider US economy? bulwark of the culture/propaganda industry? etc.). ‘Examine’ is potentially slippery in this context, as the three time periods suggest that you are asked to compare and possibly analyse stasis and change in the key features of the industry across time. For this reason, the essay will likely require a further main section, where the similarities and differences of the key features of the industry over time can be examined.

The content words are ‘main arguments’, ‘not raising’ and ‘minimum wage’. The minimum wage is the area of interest, but the focus of the essay should be on the main arguments for not raising it. ‘Put forward’ is the command. That means that you have to state the main arguments, showing their logic and evidence. Note that this is not a discuss or evaluate question: this is a one-sided question – in other words, an advocacy question.

The content words are ‘arguments’, ‘alcoholism’, ‘seen as’ and ‘disease’. This is not an essay about alcoholism, it is about the arguments that are made for seeing it – or not – as a disease (rather than other perceptions of alcoholism). There isn’t a process word to tell you directly what you need to do, but the clue is in the word ‘What’. ‘What’ indicates that the essay should be a description of the arguments that are given – for and against – seeing alcoholism as a disease. There is, therefore, also an element of contrast expected here.

The content words are ‘three theories’ and ‘juvenile delinquency’. ‘Consider’ and ‘think’ are the process words and they overlap a little. A consideration of the three theories will necessarily include a description of each, and then an analysis of their different accounts of juvenile delinquency. Saying what you think about which theory is most powerful requires evaluation. ‘Powerful’, by the way, is to do with explanatory power and, in short, means ‘most convincing’ based on evaluative criteria.

The content words are ‘define’ and ‘an American’. ‘In what ways’ is the process phrase. ‘In what ways’ at base asks you to describe, in this case, the different ways (different) people define ‘an American’. But there is a question behind the question: it is implicit that you would be expected to provide some explanation of why there are disparate constructions, representations and so on, referring to the various theories that you have encountered in your studies. Your discipline background will influence your essay content enormously. If, for instance, your discipline is American Studies, your approach to the question will be different from that of a linguist or a French or Australian sociologist.

The content words are ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’ and ‘culture’. ‘In what ways’ is the process phrase. As in Question 6, this is looking for an explanation: note, however, that in this case, you have three highly complex concepts to relate to each other. You will put a lot of effort into defining them, and you may well find that your explanatory work is already half done when you have arrived at satisfactory definitions.

The content words are ‘urban life’ and ‘rural life’, constrained by the geographical and temporal limitation of ‘the UK today’. ‘How different is’ is the process phrase. This is asking for definitions and descriptions of the two concepts, and then an account of the ways in which – and the extent to which – they are different. You may well find yourself giving an account of where they are the same in order to give a better explanation of how they are different. Depending on the focus of your studies, you might also include some historical perspective. This is the sort of question that really tests the core social science skills of description and of using evidence. There are obvious ‘big picture’ differences between urban and rural life, but there are also myriad smaller-scale similarities and differences. At a higher level, you would probably want to introduce categories of comparison, such as transport, wealth/economics, political allegiances, health/lifespan, migration/immigration, etc.

This is the kind of question that really takes practice to unpack properly. The content phrases are ‘the reasons given’, ‘prioritising the study of’ and ‘male athletes/female athletes in sports performance trials’. ‘Discuss’ is the process word. The question requires you, first to describe the reasons given (there will be explanations and evidence and both should be included) as to why sports performance trials prioritise the study of male athletes, then to weigh up the merit of those reasons. The question implies that the reasons may be contentious (the words ‘rather than’ are a hint), which might suggest that there is a question behind the question: what might be the difficulties in presuming universality of the male physique, or are there background economic realities of performance trial funding, which could throw a different light on some reasons? What’s important to note is that this is not asking you to review sports performance trials, but, instead, to consider the (perhaps ostensible) reasons for prioritising the study of male athletes (in those trials).

The content words are ‘EU’s “clean beaches” legislation’ and ‘California’s “clean beaches” legislation’. ‘Compare and contrast’ is the command phrase. There is a clear structure implied by the question: similarities in the two sets of legislation; differences in the two sets of legislation. How you choose to organise this will depend in part on your field. If you are studying EU environmental law, then you will probably use California as a foil to help you interrogate EU legislation. If you are taking a coastal environment course, then your discussion would possibly focus on which of the two is more protective, or in what ways they are both effective/ineffective. But why the scare quotes? Because there is some legislation that includes the term ‘clean beaches’ explicitly – but there are directives, etc. that impact beach cleanliness that may not include the term or, alternatively, that are ostensibly about beach cleanliness but are really about public/private access, or the prominence of advertising billboards along the coastline. The tutor has done you a favour by flagging this, but it is up to you to notice and decide how to manage it. In large part, this will be a matter of clarifying terms, and letting your reader know which legislation you are including/excluding, and why: in other words, setting the parameters, based on reasoned criteria, for what you will be able to compare and contrast within the given word count.

This is the sort of topical essay question that regularly appears in social science courses. Again, it is the sort of question that takes practice to unpack properly. The content phrases are ‘case study’, ‘with reference to broadsheet and tabloid newspapers, and television news’ and ‘“post-factual” society’. At the time of writing, the term ‘post-factual’ is being used to explain some of the voting choices in the US Presidential elections; prior to this, the term appeared in discussions of the so-called ‘Brexit’ votes (referring to Britain’s referendum on leaving the EU). The command word is ‘discuss’, but look at the structure of the question: it is in two parts, and the first part asks you to indicate whether, or to what extent, we are living in a ‘post-factual’ society. In addition, as ‘post-factual’ is a contentious notion, you will need to ensure that you offer a clearly delineated definition of the term. Your discussion will also involve introducing a case study, and exploring its coverage in the news. This will require evaluation, using carefully established criteria to determine ‘factual’ or ‘post-factual’ case study coverage. Even though ‘discuss’ is clearly the main command, you will need to do more than just ‘discuss’ a case study to do justice to this question.

The content words are ‘pierce their bodies’, ‘don’t feel good about themselves’ and ‘UK today’. ‘UK today’ limits the scope of what you need to cover. The central content phrase is ‘pierce their bodies’, for which not feeling good about oneself is one of many possible explanations. Notice that the question has a number of parts and that there are both implicit and explicit commands. There is the (contentious) claim. There is the question of ‘how valid’ is the claim – which asks for a level of evaluation, but based on (only) two theories that seek to explain body modification. You might assume that one of those theories would seek to uphold the idea that body modification is a result of low self-esteem, but there is nothing in the question to suggest that you need do this. Indeed, the way in which the question is set out suggests that the claim is likely invalid, and that the two theories to be compared have different explanations of the reasons for body modification, but both may well undermine the claim. The main command word, of course, is ‘compare’, but with reference to the validity (or otherwise) of the claim.