What makes the difference?
On very short responses (a half page or less) it is difficult to get above level 1 purely because insufficient points can be explained and there is little possibility of applying theory sufficiently to explain a point to L2 .
Mostly candidates manage to analyse (ie explain a point by applying theory) but are not able to evaluate (i.e. giving an informed judgement based on or linked to material in the text L3). Candidate's often restate material in the text that can appear as though they are answering the question; however, unless they are applying economic theory to explain their answer then often all that they are doing is restating the text.
Often candidate's will also state an answer rather than develop an answer. For example "The government stimulus package will fix the recession". While this may be true, it is stated rather than developed by applying theory. A good response would say something like "the government's stimulus package of X billion euro will stimulate household consumption and possibly investment if it is also targeted at firms. An increase in consumption and investment will result in an increase in AD and thus increase GDP Blah blah blah ..... This is an example of L2 where the candidate is analysing or evaluating economic theory.
To go the next level the candidate needs to continue on saying things like "the problem with stimulating the economy with the X billion euro stimulus package is that the government is likely to incur a budget deficit. Persistent budget deficits lead to increasing indebtedness and if sustained can undermine international confidence in both the government and the economy and their capacity to repay the debt". This can lead to ....".
