It’s as well to keep in mind what you should not be doing. Do not introduce lots of fresh evidence at this stage, though you can certainly introduce the odd extra fact that clinches your case. Nor should you go on to the ‘next’ issue. If your question is about Hitler coming to power, you should not end by giving a summary of what he did once in power. Such an irrelevant ending will fail to win marks. Remember the point about answering ‘nothing but the question’? On the other hand, it may be that some of the things Hitler did after coming to power shed valuable light on why he came to power in the first place. If you can argue this convincingly, all well and good; but don’t expect the examiner to puzzle out relevance. Examiners are not expected to think; you must make your material explicitly relevant.
I am only at Tip #2 and can already feel my “inner writer” coming back to life. I’ve been torturing myself for so long — many new ideas and perspectives to share and nothing but dread at the thought of the actual writing. I was always such a “good student”, and by the time I finished grad school I no longer enjoyed either reading or writing. Pretty sad statement, even sadder that the ill effects have lasted three decades.
The only writing advice I’ve read so far basically boils down to: it’s work, you just have to do it, set aside a specific time and force yourself…. all about as appealing as my mother’s shoe leather lamb chops. I can’t thank you enough for your approach. I think it’s going to work for me, and just know I am immensely grateful beyond what words can express. Yes!