Get schoolwork sorted with our free study resources

This question and answer are to be taken as a general rule of thumb. It is important to bear in mind that due to huge variety of political ideologies on the spectrum, there are always exceptions to the rule (such as Thatcher's social policies, which saw an increase in state powers over education despite the commitment to rolling back the frontiers of the state). The most fundamental division between left and right wing ideologies focuses around two key issues, the role of the state and the economy. Right wing ideologies stem most prominently from classical liberalism and the idea that the individual is the most important aspect of society and their freedoms should be protected (also that inequality is natural due to the differences of people at birth e.g. smarter or more entrepreneurial). This means that right wing ideologies tend to be sceptical of the state and argue for the limiting of it's powers, for example in social policy. They argue this is important in order to ensure that the state does not infringe on the personal freedom of it's citizens. A good example to use here is Margaret Thatcher's reforms in the UK in which she talked about "Rolling back the state".  This also means that right wing ideologies tend to argue for less regulation and fewer restrictions to the economy. Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist, was a pioneering figure in this field in his work 'The Road to Serfdom', in which he argued strongly for laissez-faire economics over more interventionist states, attacking the latter as totalitarian. Therefore, the two key features of right wing schools of thought are a suspicion of the role of the state (resulting in a smaller state model) and a preference for market-based economics. For left wing ideologies, a great deal of political thought on this area stems from Karl Marx with his two famous works 'The Communist Manifesto' and 'Das Kapital'. Left wing thinkers argue that inequality is a bad thing as our outcomes in life are only a product of the circumstances we are born into, and therefore it is not someone's fault if they are poor as it is likely their parents were poor before them and they had limited opportunity to improve their situation. As a result of this left wing schools of thought argue for a larger state that can provide welfare and various public goods such as the National Health Service in the UK for it's citizens. In the past certain state's have also been significantly more authoritarian (although this should not be mistaken as a trait of all left wing states) such as Stalin's USSR, in which personal freedoms were heavily limited in an attempt to promote work as the key expression of one's personality and pleasure. As well as this, left wing ideologies tend to propose more regulation in economies or even planned ones, as they believe that market's tend to be self-serving and are not in the interests of the populace as a whole. There is a great deal of debate here between different schools as to how much regulation a state should impose, with certain governments enacting a complete planned economy with all aspects of industry being organised by the state, and other governments pursuing very limited levels of regulation such as the Blair government from 1997-2007. However, it is safe to argue that more left wing ideologies propose greater levels of regulation on the economy. Therefore, the first key feature of left wing schools of thought are a commitment to a larger state to provide public services to it's citizens such as welfare, health and education. The other feature is a general belief in greater levels of regulation to the economy in order to ensure that industry and the market serve the interests of the people rather than private business owners.

To solve this question you want to do it step by step.
Firstly replace the 'a' with '4' and calculate the first part of the sum. 4 multiplied by 4, which is 16.
Next replace 'b' with '3' and calculate the second part. 2 multiplied by 3, which is 6.
once you have calculated both values simply add them together. 16 + 6 = 22

In literary analysis, it can be tricky to see what you should be looking for. Yet, consistently, we analyse without realising it. When reading a newspaper article, we interpret meaning, and a sophisticated reader will assess its source of or implicit political biases. Similar analytic skills can be applied to fiction. You assess what's being said, who's saying it and whether you trust it. There's a popular analogy of a text as a tapestry, where the reader unpicks its woven strands to see the inner workings. This imagery helps me when I'm at a loss with a text: in my search for meaning, I'm looking for details which inform the whole picture.  My advice would be to first interpret independently. Think through your visceral response to the text: did you find it poignant? Uplifting? Tragic? What are its themes and motives? Spend some time on your own thoughts, and consider what you think the author is trying to do. Next you consult secondary sources, and think about the lenses which can be applied to the text - would a feminist or geopolitical reading be apt, for instance? What can contextual information reveal about society and culture? You may also find your mark scheme a useful reading guide, as it will highlight the particular qualities you should focus on. 

It was only at university level that I learned to write a high quality essay. I now abide by the following: - Structure: most students know that an essay should have a beginning, middle, and end. But it's easy to get carried away in your writing, and forget that the end should respond to the beginning. Your introduction should offer your essay plan, and your conclusion should pull together your various points. A good essay is structured as follows: what you're going to say, what you're saying, what you've said. 
- Concise writing: if a sentence can be made shorter and retain its meaning, do it. I know I was prone to fanciful phrasing, and without it my writing is clearer and sharper. 
- Evidence-based statements: avoid sweeping generalisations. Be very specific about what you want to say, and support it with evidence from the text. 
- Confidence: don't hedge your bets. It's fine to say a text is strongly x or y, or equally that it's a combination of x, y and z. But you don't want to water down your writing with assertions that a text might perhaps be this or may be that. Be confident in your answers! As long as they are well-supported, they are perfectly valid.