I took this exam in May and thinking back, I think although I prepared well for this exam, I gave quite unusual answers which might've lost me quite a lot of marks. I was hoping someone on here could help me out, seeing as I rely on my mark for this exam to be quite good and it would be very annoying if my academic record was tarnished due to silly mistakes, with a high cost, on one paper. So I posted here to get an idea of what sort of mark I'd get.
In my part (a) answer, I felt like I answered the majority at a level 4, as my cross referencing, analysis, provenance and weighting etc. were all as good as during practice papers which I got high marks on. However, I forgot to make a clear conclusion/overall judgement, and so what I wrote for my conclusion was something along the lines of "In conclusion, Sources 1 and 2 generally agree with the statement [stated in the question], whereas Source 3 challenges it". I was told that this should only bring my mark down to the top of level 3 (15/20) but I noticed this on the level 3 criteria:
In addressing ‘how far’ there is a clear attempt to use the sources in combination, but this may be imbalanced in terms of the issues addressed or in terms of the use of the sources.
Does this mean I'd be restricted to the top of level 2 (10/20)? Since in my conclusion I didn't reach an overall judgement, by default I can't have considered 'how far'. Or does it just mean that I used the sources in combination in earlier paragraphs, to summarise 'how far' the two sources I cross-referenced in that paragraph agree/disagree with the statement through analysis (this is what I did)?
Also, on the part ( question I only made two cross references, and didn't cross reference for one paragraph, though I did everything else as normal. Is this a problem?
Thank you for your time and help.