← Strategic response to external factors

Writing a conclusion that adds genuinely new information

This is the single most commonly dropped mark in the standard — restating what was already said in (ii) and (iii) earns nothing extra, however well-written the restatement is.

What counts as genuinely NEW information

  • A condition under which the response would fail or succeed (e.g. "only if the business can fund 12-18 months of lower volume").
  • A comparison to what a competitor is doing, or to the cost of NOT acting.
  • A longer-term implication beyond the immediate positive/negative already discussed.
  • A piece of general business knowledge applied specifically to this scenario (e.g. first-mover advantage, brand loyalty, switching costs).
Exam-style A conclusion that restates vs one that adds new information A business repositions as a premium brand in response to a multinational competitor. Positive: protects margin. Negative: loses price-sensitive customers. RESTATING (weak): "Overall, this response is likely to succeed because it protects margin, even though some customers will be lost." NEW INFORMATION (strong): "This response is likely to succeed, but only if the business can survive the 12-18 month gap before the new brand image takes hold — its current cash reserves, not the strategy itself, are what will actually decide the outcome." The strong version introduces a genuinely new consideration (cash reserves as the deciding factor) rather than repackaging the two impacts already given. ✓ Restating the impacts in conclusion-shaped language is the most common way to lose this mark — the conclusion must bring something the earlier parts have not already used.

A quick test before submitting a conclusion

  • Could I delete this sentence and lose nothing, because it already appeared in (ii) or (iii)? If yes, replace it.
  • Does the conclusion name a condition, comparison, or implication not used elsewhere in the answer?

Practise just this