How to write a critical summary

A critical summary is a short piece of writing (usually around 600 words) that presents your overall answer to your key inquiry question.  

It must:

• Make a clear historical argument (called a hypothesis) that responds directly to the inquiry question
• Use specific and relevant evidence from 4–6 historical sources to support your argument
• Consider other points of view or interpretations that appear in the sources
• Show that you have carefully thought about how the evidence from a range of sources either agrees or disagrees, and what that means for your argument 

An easy way to structure your critical summary is to break it into two separate paragraphs. 

Start by clearly stating your hypothesis in direct response to your inquiry question.

This can be a judgment statement that includes a ‘to what degree’ argument. For example: “The evidence suggests that X was mostly responsible for Y”, or “To a large extent, the evidence shows that Z caused A”. 

Then, use carefully chosen evidence from your sources that clearly supports this hypothesis.

Therefore, make sure you select the strongest and most relevant information.

Each time you mention a source, take the time to explain how it helps prove your point.

This might include quoting a primary source, paraphrasing a historian's interpretation, or referring to an archaeological finding.

However, ensure that you are direct and analytical, not descriptive. 

This paragraph shows that you have critically engaged with other viewpoints.

Begin by identifying different opinions or interpretations that appear in your other sources.

These may include historians who disagree with your hypothesis, or primary sources that were crated from alternative perspectives. 

Then, discuss how these opinions are different from your first paragraph.

Following this, explain why these may be less convincing, or reliable, than your evidence in your first paragraph.

When you do this, be sure to draw upon your earlier analysis of the sources to support your evaluation.

As an additional tip, avoid bluntly stating that the other views are completely wrong.

Instead, acknowledge their value, but explain why your view is better supported by the sources. 

Finally, finish the paragraph by restating your hypothesis to remind the reader that, after considering the evidence, your argument remains the most plausible conclusion. 

To ensure that you achieve the best results possible for your critical summary, here are some additional tips:

1. Avoid phrases like “I think” or “This shows”. Instead, use formal phrasing such as “The source suggests”, “This evidence supports the argument that...”. 
2. If two specific sources explicitly agree or disagree, explain this and show why it matters for your argument. 
3. Avoid broad, general statements that aren’t in the sources. Instead, be specific about what each source says and why it matters. 
4. Stay within the word limit by aiming for around 300 words for each of the two paragraphs by making sure you keep your writing focused on explanation and justifying your argument. 

To a limited extent, the evidence suggests that the Weimar Republic was a stable democratic government between 1919 and 1933 because the regime introduced universal suffrage, created a constitution that included civil liberties, and presided over a period of relative prosperity during the so-called ‘Golden Years’ from 1924 to 1929. However, these features were consistently undermined by long-standing constitutional weaknesses, widespread political opposition from both extremes, and economic vulnerability that prevented the regime from securing long-term stability. The inclusion of Article 48 in the Weimar Constitution allowed the president to bypass the Reichstag during a crisis, which granted the executive a legal mechanism to ignore democratic processes whenever it became politically convenient (Evans, 2003). Unfortunately, from the earliest years, the Republic faced major insurrections such as the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 and the right-wing Kapp Putsch in March 1920, which were only suppressed with the assistance of armed paramilitary groups like the Freikorps, whose loyalty to the new democracy remained questionable at best. In personal accounts written by Freikorps officers during the suppression of the Spartacists, the language used to describe the protesters shows a strong ideological hostility to socialism, which suggests that their support for the Weimar regime was driven by short-term self-interest rather than democratic conviction (Schutt, 1920). Although Gustav Stresemann’s economic and diplomatic reforms brought temporary stability after 1924, his dependence on the Dawes Plan left Germany reliant on foreign loans, which created an illusion of recovery rather than true financial security. In a letter written shortly before his death, Stresemann warned that Germany’s prosperity was "superficial" and that the economy remained "exposed to external shocks" (Stresemann, 1929). These sources point to a consistent pattern in which temporary improvements hid deeper weaknessses in the political structure, which made the Republic’s long-term survival uncertain. 

However, some historians do argue that the Weimar Republic may have succeeded under different circumstances, and their interpretations draw particular attention to the democratic progress made before the Great Depression. For example, Detlev Peukert has suggested that the Republic was “a democracy without democrats” and that, although structurally fragile, it might have endured had it not been overwhelmed by the global economic collapse of 1929 (Peukert, 1987). According to this view, the Republic’s downfall was not necessarily inevitable but rather the result of a combination of misfortunes that struck at the worst possible time. In fact, public support for democratic reform can be seen in the 1928 Vorwärts editorial, which praised improvements to education, worker protections, and cultural life (Vorwärts, 1928). This indicates that for many ordinary Germans, the Republic delivered real social benefits to them. However, this optimism failed to prevent the dramatic political shift that followed the Wall Street Crash. The rapid rise of the Nazi Party after 1930, culminating in their 230 seats in the July 1932 Reichstag election, demonstrated how fragile the democratic consensus had become. The Nazis used legal means to dismantle democracy from within, exploiting the emergency powers that had been embedded in the constitution to expand their control without needing to abolish the system outright. Although economic hardship played a significant role in fuelling public discontent, the Republic’s political structure had already shown signs of instability. The fact that extremist groups could repeatedly challenge the state, and eventually dominate it, suggests that Weimar’s democratic institutions had failed to secure the loyalty of key segments of the population. For this reason, although some sources highlight positive features of the Republic and argue that its fall was avoidable, the most convincing conclusion is that the Weimar government was never fully stable and could not endure sustained political and economic pressure.