- Primrose Kitten Academy
- Posts
- How to Answer 12-Mark Questions in AQA GCSE Sociology š¬š
How to Answer 12-Mark Questions in AQA GCSE Sociology š¬š
Letās break it down step-by-step so you can go into your exam feeling confident and ready to smash it š„.
Jen - Primrose Kitten
November 09, 2025
If you're feeling a bit š¬ about those 12-mark questions in your GCSE Sociology exams, you're not alone. But donāt worry ā Iāve got you!
āØ Example essay? Save this for later and share it with your mates! ššÆāāļø
We know how tricky 12-mark questions can feel, so weāre building up a library of example essays ā clear, well-structured, and full of the key theories and concepts you need to impress the examiner ā . Whether you're revising alone or comparing answers with friends, these examples are here to make things so much easier. So hit that save button š, tag your friends, and come back to this whenever you need a boost! š¬š
Table of Contents
First Things First: Whatās a 12-Mark Question? š¤
This is the big one in your Paper 1 and Paper 2 exams. It's usually an "assess" or "evaluate" style question, asking you to weigh up different viewpoints and come to a conclusion. Youāll be marked on:
AO1: Knowledge & understanding (4 marks)
AO2: Application to the question or context (4 marks)
AO3: Analysis & evaluation (4 marks)
You need to show off your knowledge, apply it properly, and argue your case ā just like a mini sociologist! š§āāļøš
ā° Time Tips
Spend about 15 minutes on this question.
Donāt waffle ā stay focused!
Use paragraphs, not one long chunk of text.
AQA GCSE Sociology Example 12 mark Essays (Level 4)
Weāre putting together a whole collection of top-grade example essays to help you feel more confident tackling those 12-mark questions. These arenāt just for reading once ā theyāre perfect for revision, practice, and even comparing with your own answers to see how you can improve š”. So donāt lose it! Hit save š, send it to your class, and come back whenever you need a bit of essay inspiration. You've got this! š¬š
Families
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
The family mainly exists to support capitalism
Marxist sociologists would strongly agree with this view. They argue that the family plays a key role in supporting capitalism by socialising children into accepting capitalist norms and values. For example, Zaretsky argues that the family provides an illusion of a private, safe space, which helps to relieve the stress of working life and keeps workers going back to their jobs. He also suggests that the family acts as a unit of consumption, buying products from capitalist companies, which increases profits for the bourgeoisie.
However, functionalist sociologists such as Parsons and Murdock would disagree. They believe the family performs essential functions for both individuals and society, not just capitalism. Parsons identified two main functions of the family: the stabilisation of adult personalities and the primary socialisation of children. He saw the family as a positive institution that helps maintain social order and benefits society as a whole, not just the capitalist system.
Feminist sociologists offer a different criticism. Delphy and Leonard argue that the family mainly serves the needs of men, not capitalism. They highlight how women do unpaid domestic work and emotional labour, which supports men and allows them to work longer hours in the capitalist system. While this indirectly supports capitalism, feminists believe the family is more about maintaining patriarchy than capitalism.
Other sociologists point out that other institutions, like education and the media, also play a major role in supporting capitalism. For example, Bowles and Gintis argue that schools prepare children for work in capitalist economies through the hidden curriculum, which teaches obedience and acceptance of hierarchy. This suggests the family might not be the main institution that serves capitalism today.
In conclusion, while the Marxist view highlights important ways in which the family supports capitalism, other perspectives such as functionalism and feminism suggest alternative functions. Furthermore, other institutions like education and the media may now play a more central role in maintaining capitalism. Therefore, sociologists would only partly agree that the main function of the family is to serve capitalism.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Gender roles in British families today are equal
Some sociologists argue that gender roles in families are becoming more equal, particularly from a functionalist perspective. Young and Willmottās concept of the symmetrical family suggests that men and women now share both paid work and domestic responsibilities more equally, especially in younger, more affluent couples. The rise of the 'New Man', who is more involved in housework and childcare, supports the idea that traditional gender roles are breaking down.
However, feminist sociologists strongly disagree with the idea that gender roles are now equal. Oakleyās research found that even when both partners worked full-time, women still did the majority of the housework. Delphy and Leonard argue that families are still patriarchal, and women often face a dual burden ā doing paid work and the majority of domestic tasks. Some also experience a triple shift, which includes emotional labour as well. This shows that gender roles may have changed, but they are not yet equal.
Marxist feminists also highlight how the unpaid domestic work done by women supports capitalism by keeping the workforce healthy and functioning. This view suggests that inequality in gender roles is not just about family norms, but also about wider economic systems that benefit from womenās unpaid labour.
The Rapoports emphasise increasing family diversity, which means gender roles can vary widely. For example, in same-sex families or lone-parent households, roles are often more negotiated or flexible. This suggests that in some families, gender roles may be more equal, depending on the type of family structure.
Despite some changes, media representations still often show stereotypical gender roles ā like the so-called "cereal packet family", where the woman is seen as the main caregiver and the man as the breadwinner. This reinforces traditional roles and can influence the way children are socialised, as described by Oakleyās concept of canalisation ā where children are guided into gendered behaviour through toys, clothes and expectations.
In conclusion, while there have been some moves towards equality in gender roles within families, especially in more modern and diverse family types, many sociologists ā particularly feminists ā would argue that there is still a long way to go. Traditional roles and inequalities remain, both in practice and in social expectations.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Legal changes are the main factor behind divorce trends in Britain since 1969
Many sociologists agree that changes in the law have been a major reason for the rise in divorce since 1969. The Divorce Reform Act (1969) made it easier, cheaper and quicker to get a divorce, as couples no longer had to prove fault such as adultery or cruelty. Further legal reforms, like the 1984 law reducing the minimum time before divorce and the Family Law Act (1996), have also made divorce more accessible. The sharp rise in divorce rates after 1969 provides evidence that changes in the law have played a significant role.
However, legal changes are not the only explanation. Feminists argue that divorce has increased because of the changing position of women in society. Women have greater financial independence and more opportunities in education and employment. This means they are no longer forced to remain in unhappy or abusive marriages. Kate Millett and other radical feminists highlight that most divorce petitions are started by women, showing that divorce can be seen as a rejection of patriarchy.
Functionalists, such as Fletcher, suggest that the rise in divorce is partly due to higher expectations of marriage. In the past, people stayed married even if they were unhappy, but today, couples are more likely to divorce if their relationship does not meet their emotional needs. Similarly, Parsons argued that marriage now focuses more on personal satisfaction, which can explain why divorce rates have risen.
Other factors also matter, such as secularisation. As religion has declined in importance, divorce has lost much of its stigma. People are less likely to feel pressured to stay in unhappy marriages for religious reasons. Likewise, changing social attitudes mean divorce is no longer viewed as shameful but is widely accepted, especially with increasing media coverage normalising divorce.
Marxist sociologists would add that economic changes also affect divorce. Hart argued that changes in the economy, such as higher unemployment or financial pressures, can put strain on marriages, especially in working-class families, leading to higher divorce rates.
In conclusion, while changes in the law have clearly made divorce easier and more common, they are not the only explanation. The rising status of women, changing attitudes, secularisation, and economic pressures have all contributed. Most sociologists would agree that legal changes were a key trigger, but broader social changes explain why divorce rates have continued to stay high since 1969.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
The nuclear family remains the typical family type in Britain today
Some sociologists would agree that the nuclear family remains the norm in Britain today. Functionalists argue that the nuclear family performs essential functions for both individuals and society. For example, Parsons suggested that the nuclear family provides primary socialisation of children and the stabilisation of adult personalities. From this view, the nuclear family continues to be the most important family type.
The New Right perspective, including sociologists like Charles Murray, also supports the idea that the nuclear family is the best family form. They argue that children raised outside of nuclear familiesāsuch as in lone-parent householdsāare more likely to experience poverty, lower educational achievement, and deviant behaviour. For Murray, the nuclear family is not only the norm but also the most effective way to bring up children.
However, other sociologists argue that the nuclear family is no longer the dominant family type. Feminists view the nuclear family as patriarchal, serving male power and controlling women. They argue that presenting the nuclear family as āthe normā hides the inequalities within it, such as womenās unpaid domestic labour and the persistence of the dual burden.
Marxists also criticise the nuclear family, claiming it supports capitalism by socialising children into obedience and acting as a unit of consumption. Zaretsky argued that the nuclear family gives workers an illusion of safety and comfort, encouraging them to accept their exploitation.
In addition, there is increasing family diversity in Britain today. The Rapoports argued that there is no single ādominantā family type, with lone-parent families, same-sex families, and reconstituted families all becoming more common. For example, in 2019 there were 2.9 million lone-parent families in the UK, showing that family forms other than the nuclear family are significant.
Despite this, the nuclear family is still often promoted as the ideal through media representations. The so-called ācereal packet familyāāa married couple with childrenāremains a common image in advertising, even if it no longer reflects the reality of most households.
In conclusion, while the nuclear family continues to be seen as the norm by functionalists, the New Right, and in media images, many sociologists argue that family diversity and changing social attitudes mean the nuclear family is no longer dominant in practice. Therefore, sociologists would partly agreeāit is still important, but it is not the only or main family type in Britain today.
Education
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Ethnic differences in how well students do at school are caused by what happens inside schools
Some sociologists, particularly interactionists, argue that internal factors within schools play a significant role in explaining ethnic differences in educational achievement. For example, labelling and teacher expectations can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where students internalise negative stereotypes and perform poorly as a result. Mac an Ghaill found that some Black and Asian students were negatively labelled by teachers, which could lower their self-esteem and academic outcomes.
Another important internal factor is the ethnocentric curriculum. This refers to the way school content can prioritise white, Western culture and history, which can alienate students from ethnic minority backgrounds. This may lead to a lack of engagement and lower achievement. Similarly, institutional racism and unconscious bias in school policies or disciplinary practices may disadvantage certain ethnic groups.
However, other sociologists argue that external factors play a bigger role. Cultural deprivation theorists suggest that differences in parental expectations, language skills, and attitudes to education can affect achievement. For instance, some ethnic minority families may face economic disadvantage or cultural barriers, which impact their childrenās educational success more than what happens inside school.
Marxists argue that itās not ethnicity alone that matters, but social class. They point out that working-class students, regardless of ethnicity, tend to underachieve due to material deprivation and lack of access to educational resources. Therefore, differences in achievement might be more about poverty than ethnicity.
Feminists also highlight that gender is a key factor. For example, while some ethnic groups may underachieve, girls from those same groups often outperform boys, showing that gender can intersect with ethnicity in complex ways.
In conclusion, while internal school factors like labelling and the curriculum do affect ethnic achievement, many sociologists believe that external factors such as social class, parental background, and wider social inequalities have a greater influence. So, sociologists would partly agree ā but they generally see a mix of both internal and external causes.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Preparing students for work is the main role of the education system
Many sociologists would agree that preparing students for the world of work is a key function of the education system. Functionalist sociologists, such as Durkheim, argue that education teaches the skills and values needed for work, like punctuality and teamwork. Davis and Moore also claim that education performs role allocation, where students are sifted and sorted into jobs based on their abilities, helping society run smoothly.
The New Right also supports this view. They believe schools should be linked closely to the economy, providing training and qualifications that are useful in the workplace. Vocational education and technical qualifications are examples of how schools aim to prepare students directly for specific jobs.
Marxist sociologists, such as Bowles and Gintis, agree that education prepares students for workābut for a more critical reason. They argue that the hidden curriculum teaches students to accept authority and inequality, making them better workers in a capitalist system. Their correspondence principle suggests that school mirrors the workplace in terms of hierarchy, discipline, and motivation by rewards.
However, not all sociologists think work preparation is the main function. Feminists, like Heaton and Lawson, argue that education reinforces patriarchal values, preparing girls for lower-paid, caring roles rather than giving everyone equal opportunities in work. This suggests education may maintain gender inequality rather than purely prepare all students for employment.
Other sociologists highlight alternative functions. For example, education is also a key part of secondary socialisation, teaching norms and values, building social cohesion, and preparing individuals to take part in society more broadlyānot just the workplace.
In conclusion, while many sociologists do agree that preparing students for work is an important function of education, others argue itās not the main . Some see education as reinforcing social inequalities, and others highlight its role in socialisation and personal development. So, sociologists would partly agree with the statement, but opinions vary depending on perspective.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
How schools group students affects their educational achievement
Some sociologists argue that the way students are grouped in schools has a major impact on their achievement. Interactionists highlight how grouping, such as setting and streaming, can affect teacher expectations. Becker found that teachers often label pupils against an āideal studentā stereotype, which can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, students placed in lower sets may be seen as less able, leading them to underachieve, while higher-set students may be pushed to succeed. Ballās study of banding in secondary schools also showed how streaming reinforced social class differences, as working-class students were often placed in lower bands.
Marxists also agree that grouping has an impact, but they link it to wider social class inequality. They argue that working-class students are more likely to be placed in lower sets due to teacher bias, reinforcing class divisions. This helps reproduce inequality by preparing working-class students for lower-status jobs. Willisās study showed how some working-class boys formed an anti-school subculture in response to being placed in lower groups, which affected their achievement.
Feminists, however, highlight how grouping can reproduce gender inequalities. For example, boys and girls may be steered towards different subjects through gendered expectations or single-sex grouping in certain lessons. This can reinforce stereotypes, with boys encouraged towards maths and science and girls towards arts or caring subjects, which affects future opportunities.
On the other hand, functionalists argue that grouping students can be beneficial. They believe education is a meritocracy where students are grouped according to ability, allowing them to learn at the right pace. From this perspective, setting and streaming ensure that studentsā educational performance reflects their talents and effort, rather than holding back more able students.
However, some sociologists argue that external factors are more important than grouping. For example, ethnicity, material deprivation, and parental support may affect achievement more strongly. If students face poverty or discrimination outside school, grouping alone cannot explain educational performance.
In conclusion, many sociologists would agree that the way students are grouped can have a significant effect on achievement, especially through labelling, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the reproduction of inequality. However, external factors such as class, gender, and ethnicity also play an important role, so sociologists would partly agree with this statement.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
The main role of education is to socialise children into society
Many sociologists, especially functionalists, would agree that the main function of education is to teach children how to fit into society. Durkheim argued that schools encourage social solidarity by teaching children shared norms and values, such as respect for rules and a sense of belonging to the wider community. Similarly, Parsons described schools as a bridge between the family and wider society, preparing children for their adult roles. This view suggests education plays a central role in socialisation.
The national curriculum also supports this function. Subjects such as History and Citizenship Education are designed to promote shared knowledge, cultural identity, and political understanding. The hidden curriculumāthings students learn indirectly, such as punctuality, respect for authority, and teamworkāalso helps prepare young people to become responsible members of society.
However, Marxists argue that education does not teach children how to be part of society in a fair way. Instead, it reproduces class inequality and serves the needs of capitalism. For example, Bowles and Gintis argue that the hidden curriculum teaches obedience and acceptance of hierarchy, preparing children for exploitation in the workplace rather than active participation in society. From this view, education benefits the ruling class rather than society as a whole.
Feminists also criticise the idea that education simply teaches children to become part of society. They argue that the education system reinforces patriarchal values. For example, Heaton and Lawson point out that women are underrepresented in certain parts of the curriculum, and teachers may still have different expectations of boys and girls. This suggests education does not teach all children equally to be part of society, but rather supports existing gender inequalities.
Furthermore, other sociologists argue that education has additional important functions beyond socialisation. Davis and Moore, for instance, highlight its role in role allocation, where education sorts people into jobs that match their abilities. This means that education is not just about teaching norms and values, but also about preparing individuals for different roles in the economy.
In conclusion, functionalists strongly agree that the main function of education is to teach children how to become part of society, through both the national and hidden curriculum. However, Marxists and feminists see this process as one that reinforces inequality rather than creating true social cohesion. Therefore, sociologists would partly agreeāeducation does help integrate children into society, but not always in a fair or equal way, and other functions are also significant.
Crime and Deviance
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Some sociologists, particularly functionalists, would agree that informal social control is a very effective way of managing deviant behaviour. They argue that agencies of informal control like the family, peers, religion, and education play a crucial role in teaching individuals the norms and values of society. For example, the family, through primary socialisation, teaches children right from wrong. If this process is successful, individuals internalise these norms and are less likely to behave in deviant ways.
Marxists also acknowledge that informal social control can be effective, but they see it as a tool used to maintain capitalist ideology. According to them, families and schools encourage obedience, conformity, and respect for authority, which helps produce passive workers. This process can be effective, but from a Marxist perspective, it promotes false consciousness and discourages people from challenging inequality.
Feminist sociologists, such as Heidensohn, argue that informal social control is particularly effective in controlling womenās behaviour. For example, women may face more social pressure to behave ārespectably,ā especially in public spaces. This type of control, while effective, reinforces patriarchal values and limits womenās freedom.
However, interactionist sociologists argue that the effectiveness of informal social control depends on the social context. Labelling theory suggests that deviance is not just about the act itself but how others react to it. For instance, excessive drinking might be seen as deviant in one group but acceptable in another. This means informal control can be inconsistent and subjective.
There are also limits to informal social control. For example, it may be ineffective if the agents themselves (like family or peers) share or encourage deviant values. A parent who buys alcohol for their underage child or peers who support deviant behaviour may actually reinforce deviance rather than prevent it. In such cases, formal social controlālike the police or courtsāmight be more effective.
In conclusion, many sociologists agree that informal social control can be an effective way to manage deviant behaviour, especially when individuals are strongly connected to their families, peer groups, or communities. However, its effectiveness can vary based on the situation, the individuals involved, and the values being promoted. Therefore, sociologists would partly agree with the statement, but most would recognise that informal social control works best when supported by formal systems and shared social norms.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Crime is caused by limited opportunities in society
Some sociologists would agree that a lack of opportunities plays a significant role in causing crime. For example, Mertonās strain theory suggests that people share the same goals, like financial success, but not everyone has equal access to the approved means of achieving them. When legitimate paths are blockedāsuch as through poor education or job discriminationāsome individuals may turn to crime to achieve success.
Cohen, another functionalist, argued that working-class boys experience status frustration because they struggle in school and can't access the same opportunities as others. As a result, they may join deviant subcultures to gain status and respect in other ways.
Marxist sociologists also support the idea that lack of opportunities leads to crime. They argue that capitalist society creates inequality, and people in poverty are more likely to commit crime due to material deprivation. For example, consumer culture encourages people to buy expensive items, but not everyone can afford them. This can lead to theft or other utilitarian crimes as a way to cope with exclusion from mainstream society.
Feminist sociologist Carlen also links crime to lack of opportunities, especially for working-class women. She argued that women make a āclass dealā (work for a decent standard of living) and a āgender dealā (emotional and financial support from a man). When neither deal is available, some women turn to crime as a rational response to poverty and lack of alternatives.
However, interactionist sociologists focus less on opportunity and more on labelling and societal reaction. Becker argued that people are labelled as deviant based on their background, and this can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. This perspective suggests that itās not just the lack of opportunity that leads to crime, but how society responds to individuals.
The New Right takes a different view, arguing that crime happens due to inadequate socialisation, not just lack of opportunity. They believe families, especially lone-parent households, may fail to teach proper values, leading to increased likelihood of criminal behaviour.
In conclusion, many sociologists agree that a lack of opportunities in societyāsuch as poor education, low income, or job insecurityācan lead to crime. However, other perspectives suggest that labelling, poor socialisation, and individual choice also play a role. So, sociologists would partly agree with the statement, but itās only one part of a much more complex picture.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
The welfare state is responsible for creating an underclass
The New Right perspective strongly supports this statement. Murray argued that the welfare state has created a dependency culture, where people choose to live on benefits rather than work. According to this view, welfare encourages laziness and irresponsibility, leading to the formation of an underclass that relies on handouts instead of contributing to society. Murray believed this underclass passes on deviant values to their children, creating a cycle of dependency.
However, Marxists see the welfare state differently. They argue that welfare does not create an underclass, but instead acts as a way of keeping the working class passive. By providing the bare minimum for survival, the welfare state prevents the poor from challenging inequality or questioning the capitalist system. From this perspective, welfare does not create an underclass but ensures that inequality continues.
Social democrats disagree with the New Right. They argue that the welfare state exists to protect vulnerable groups from the inequalities of capitalism, such as lone parents, disabled people, and those with limited job opportunities. They see benefits, social housing, and services like the NHS as essential for fairness and social justice, not as a way of creating dependency.
Feminists argue that the welfare state does not necessarily create an underclass but instead reinforces patriarchy. For example, policies often assume a traditional family structure with a male breadwinner, leaving women, especially lone mothers, financially vulnerable. Heidensohn and others suggest welfare can limit womenās independence, though more recent changes, like free childcare hours, have helped women re-enter the workforce.
Other sociologists point out that the welfare state tries to reduce poverty rather than create it. Initiatives such as pupil premium funding help disadvantaged children access education, while benefits and food banks provide support for struggling families. Critics of the New Right note that most people who claim benefits do so out of genuine need, not choice. Rising living costs and insecure work, like zero-hour contracts, can make welfare a necessity rather than a lifestyle.
In conclusion, while the New Right argues the welfare state creates an underclass through dependency, other perspectives see it as a necessary response to inequality and social change. Most evidence suggests that welfare supports those in need rather than encouraging idleness. Therefore, sociologists would only partly agree with the statementāthe welfare state may create dependency in a small minority, but for most people, it is a vital safety net.
Discuss how far sociologists would agree thatā¦
Patriarchy still exists in Britain today
Some sociologists, particularly feminists, argue that patriarchy still exists in Britain today. Radical feminists see patriarchy as the main source of womenās oppression. For example, Walby identified six patriarchal structures, including the household and paid work, and argued that women still face inequalities in both the private and public spheres. Even though women can technically leave relationships or gain independence, they are often lower earners and more likely to take on childcare responsibilities, which can trap them in poverty.
Marxist feminists argue that patriarchy is closely linked to capitalism. According to Zaretsky, women provide unpaid domestic labour, which benefits men and the capitalist system by keeping workers fed and cared for at little cost. Women are also often used as a source of cheap and flexible labour, which keeps wages low and maintains class inequality as well as gender inequality.
Liberal feminists, however, are more optimistic. They acknowledge that patriarchy exists but believe it can be reduced through legislation and policy changes. For example, the Equality Act 2010, the Equal Pay Act, and shared parental leave have aimed to reduce discrimination and give women more equal opportunities in the workplace and at home. They also argue that socialisation, such as sex-role conditioning, is slowly changing as more boys and girls are taught that they can aspire to the same careers and lifestyles.
Other sociologists question whether patriarchy still exists. Functionalists, such as Davis and Moore, argue that inequalities in society are the result of meritocracy rather than male domination. They claim that society rewards talent and ability, and if men dominate certain roles, it is because of skill and effort rather than patriarchy. From this view, inequality is functional for society, not necessarily oppressive.
However, critics argue that meritocracy is a myth. Although legislation has reduced inequalities, the gender pay gap still exists, women are more likely to be in part-time or low-paid jobs, and they are often held back in their careers due to childcare responsibilities. Around 90% of lone parents are women, and they often need flexible working arrangements, which restricts opportunities for higher pay or promotion. This shows that even with reforms, women continue to face disadvantages that men do not.
In conclusion, while some progress has been made through laws and changing attitudes, many sociologists would agree that patriarchy continues to exist in modern British society, particularly in the workplace, the household, and wider culture. However, the extent of patriarchy is debated, with liberal feminists seeing gradual progress, while radical and Marxist feminists argue it remains deeply entrenched.
Social Stratification