How to Write a Great IB Extended Essay in 2025 (leveraging ChatGPT)
So, it’s time to write your Extended Essay - but you have no idea where to start, let alone how to write a whopping 4000 words!
In this blogpost, we explore how we can use AI to help us and, of course, how AI definitely cannot help us. AI is tool we can use to help us brainstorm, help us learn and help us with the structure of our Extended Essay. AI is definitely not a tool that is very good at writing full essays - and it is also definitely a great way to get caught for plagiarism and risk having to rewrite the Extended Essay from scratch. Since none of us want that - let’s have a look at how ChatGPT can help us with our Extended Essay.
Curious how to use AI to write a smarter, stronger Extended Essay?
Get one-on-one tutoring from top IB experts who’ll help you plan, write, and refine your EE - and teach you how to use ChatGPT the right way to boost your research, structure, and analysis.
If you don’t have time to read this, here is the TLDR:
The Bad/The Ugly
ChatGPT cannot formulate a good research question for you.
ChatGPT cannot think analytically - something the IB wants from your Extended Essays.
ChatGPT cannot formulate a good methodology for your Extended Essay (at least not for an individuals and societies EE).
ChatGPT cannot reference properly.
ChatGPT has failed to provide a good structure (no topic sentences, concluding sentences, or transition sentences).
The Good
ChatGPT has (for once) written a focused essay that actually answers the research question.
Can ChatGPT Write an EE?
To test that, I asked ChatGPT to write a full Extended Essay by asking it the following random Research Question: Write a 4000 word paper which includes a methodology on the following question: To what extent was the 1979 Iranian revolution a consequence of the 1953 coup d’etat in Iran? Thank you (always thank your AI in case of an uprising).
Now, before I go into what ChatGPT did well in the essay, and what it didn’t do very well, it is important to note that formulating a good research question is one of the most important aspects of writing your Extended Essay. There are multiple criteria in the rubric focused around having a clear research question. And, even if we disregard these, a good essay rises and falls with a good research question.
So - how can we come up with a good research question?
To answer this, we should look at the difference between analytical and descriptive papers.
The IB cares a lot about writing an analytical paper, as opposed to a descriptive paper. A descriptive paper can be loosely defined as a paper that describes what’s going on. I might say, for instance, that “fictional historian Pete said that the 1979 revolution occurred because of economical factors, which fictional historian Bob said also were factors in the 1953 coup d’etat”. I have described what 2 historians have said about my research question.
If I want to write an analytical paper, I have to analyse the situation with my own eyes and brain in order to provide some implications for the things that I am writing about.
I may, for instance, say that fictional historian Pete notes that economical factors were present in the 1979 Iranian revolution. I might also say that fictional historian Bob notes that there were also economic factors present in the 1953 coup d’etat, but (and here is where it gets analytical!) that upon further investigation these economical factors were considerably different - and while economic factors often play a role in changes in power, they only serve to exacerbate (heighten) public dissatisfaction which played a much more important role.
So, how does this relate to our research question? What the IB wants is a research question that is clearly stated and focused.
So, what they want is a research question that is analytical instead of descriptive - or at least allows for you to write an analytical essay instead of a descriptive one. So, the IB does not want a question like: “How has Iran’s history developed?” This is a very unclear question because its scope is massive. We cannot cover all of Iran’s history in 4000 words. Even if we change it to: How has Iran’s history developed in the last 100 years? This is also a vague and unfocused question. To formulate a clearer - and more analytical - question, you may ask yourself what it is about your question that you find interesting. Why do you want to explore this question instead of a different one. An answer to this might be that Iran’s history is interesting because there is a lot of turmoil currently happening in Iran. Great! You’ve now already focused your question to: To what extent has the 1979 Iranian revolution led to international instability in the 2020s? Now we have a question that is clear and focused - and a question that can be answered in an analytical way. We may include what historians say about the matter - but we have to do some of the thinking ourselves because there will not be a clear answer to be found online.
Since there is no clear answer to be found online - or even in the history books - you can imagine that ChatGPT cannot get you that A. It can certainly help lay the groundwork for your reflective analytical thinking - but you will have to do the analytical thinking yourself.
So, with that in mind, we can move on to the essay that ChatGPT came up with. The essay, in case you wanted to read it, is pasted at the bottom of this blogpost.
Let’s begin with the methodology. The IB wants you to have a complete and clear methodology. For history and other individuals and social sciences essays, the methodology is almost always a literature review. That is, you are analysing a research question by first looking at what the literature says, writing about what this literature says, and then using that information to answer your research question (in an analytical manner). Instead of saying ‘literature review’, ChatGPT has wasted valuable words on a very in-depth methodology that your paper really does not require. So, feel free to ignore ChatGPT’s recommendations on methodology fully – instead, ask your teachers whether your methodology makes sense.
The second thing that ChatGPT does not do very well is referencing. There are many pieces of information that are not well-referenced. When it comes to an essay like this – only common knowledge or your own analytical thoughts do not need to be referenced. Everything else does. ChatGPT fails at this in every paragraph it writes. And – as most people know – ChatGPT makes up fake references. For this reason alone, you cannot take its referencing seriously.
The third thing that ChatGPT has not done very well is structure. It is incredibly important to have a good structure for such a long essay so that your essay remains focused. Each section should serve a clear purpose, and the reader should know what that purpose is before reading. ChatGPT has not included any topic sentences (sentences at the beginning of each paragraph that state what the paragraph or section will be about) and no concluding sentences (restating at the end of the paragraph what was discussed and how it links to the research question). So, while it is interesting to read ChatGPT’s essay, I’m quite lost as to how each section answers the research question, because it is not stated explicitly.
Despite these issues, it has actually written a pretty good essay in terms of content and focus. The IB really wants essays to be focused on answering the research question. There should not be unnecessary fluff or diversions from the topic at hand. To check this, you could ask yourself at the end of each paragraph: has this paragraph answered the research question? And if yes, how has it done so?
Now, the fact that ChatGPT has written an essay that actually answers the research question is a bit of an outlier. I’ve done a few of these blogposts now about ChatGPT – and it almost always provides an essay that is unfocused and doesn’t actually answer the question. So take this consideration with a grain of salt.
Naturally – you cannot copy what ChatGPT has written – but its arguments, in this case, can inspire you to formulate your own.
It can help you look for arguments that would support your essay – which might prompt you to read certain historians as you start your research journey. With the extended essay, it’s all about getting started. Writing long papers is definitely a journey – you might end up with a different research question by the end or change your topic mid-way – and ChatGPT can serve as a starting point for this journey. But, given the information above, that is really all it can be used for regarding your extended essay.
If you did have time to read this, here is the TLDR (BPS) (too long, did read, but please summarise):
The Bad:
ChatGPT cannot formulate a good research question for you.
ChatGPT cannot think analytically - something the IB wants from your Extended Essays.
ChatGPT cannot formulate a good methodology for your Extended Essay (at least not for an individuals and societies EE).
ChatGPT cannot reference properly.
ChatGPT has failed to provide a good structure (no topic sentences, concluding sentences, or transition sentences).
The Good:
ChatGPT has (for once) written a focused essay that actually answers the research question.
Good luck with your Extended Essay and happy writing!
Want to use ChatGPT for your Extended Essay - without falling into common traps? Learn how to turn its vague, unfocused drafts into high-scoring work with clear structure, proper referencing, and a strong methodology.
References:
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (June 16 version)[Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
The essay:
To What Extent Was the 1979 Iranian Revolution a Consequence of the 1953 Coup d'État in Iran?
Abstract
This paper explores the extent to which the 1979 Iranian Revolution was a consequence of the 1953 coup d'état in Iran that deposed Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstalled the Shah with increased authoritarian power. The study evaluates the political, economic, social, and ideological continuities between the two events and incorporates both primary and secondary sources to trace causality and influence. While acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the 1979 revolution, this paper argues that the 1953 coup served as a foundational moment that deeply shaped Iranian politics, set the stage for authoritarian rule, created a legacy of anti-Western sentiment, and facilitated the socio-political conditions necessary for revolutionary upheaval in 1979.
Introduction
The 1979 Iranian Revolution remains one of the most significant events in the 20th-century Middle East, marking the dramatic overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s regime and the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. Scholars have long debated the causes of this revolution, which appear to span a wide array of social, political, religious, and economic factors. One critical turning point often considered foundational to understanding the revolution is the 1953 coup d'état, orchestrated by British and American intelligence services, which deposed democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restored the Shah’s monarchical rule.
This paper investigates the extent to which the 1979 revolution was a consequence of the 1953 coup by examining the long-term political, economic, and ideological effects of the coup on Iranian society. Through historical analysis and the synthesis of diverse scholarly perspectives, the study evaluates the causal links between the two events and situates them within broader trends of Iranian nationalism, foreign intervention, and authoritarianism.
Methodology
To assess the relationship between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution, this paper employs a qualitative historical methodology rooted in both primary and secondary source analysis. The methodology involves the following key components:
Primary Source Analysis: Examination of declassified documents (e.g., CIA records), memoirs (e.g., those of Mossadegh and the Shah), speeches (particularly from Ayatollah Khomeini), and newspapers from the era to understand the contemporary perceptions of both the coup and the revolution.
Secondary Source Synthesis: Review of academic literature from historians, political scientists, and sociologists who have analyzed both events. Key authors include Ervand Abrahamian, Nikki R. Keddie, Stephen Kinzer, and Ray Takeyh.
Thematic Framework: Analysis structured around four main themes—political authoritarianism, anti-Western sentiment, socio-economic grievances, and ideological mobilization—to track the legacy of the 1953 coup into 1979.
Comparative Historical Analysis: The paper juxtaposes pre- and post-1953 Iran with the socio-political climate of the 1970s to identify continuities and ruptures that informed the revolution.
Causality Assessment: Using a historical-causal approach, the paper evaluates direct and indirect consequences of the coup, distinguishing between proximate and structural causes.
The objective is not to argue that the 1953 coup alone caused the revolution, but to critically assess its contribution within a complex web of historical forces.
The 1953 Coup d'État: Context and Consequences
The 1953 coup was a pivotal moment in modern Iranian history. Mohammad Mossadegh, a nationalist and leader of the National Front, had become Prime Minister in 1951 and quickly moved to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), challenging British economic interests. The British, with American backing, responded with Operation Ajax, a covert operation executed by the CIA and MI6, culminating in Mossadegh’s removal and the consolidation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s power.
The coup had several far-reaching consequences:
Authoritarianism: The Shah, previously a constitutional monarch, became an autocratic ruler backed by Western powers. The post-coup era saw the dissolution of the parliament, the banning of opposition parties, and the creation of the brutal SAVAK intelligence service.
Western Interventionism: The coup planted deep resentment among Iranians toward the United States and Britain. Many viewed it as a blatant violation of national sovereignty, fueling anti-imperialist sentiments that would intensify in later decades.
Suppression of Political Opposition: Nationalist and leftist movements were systematically dismantled. The Tudeh Party and other secular groups were marginalized or forced underground.
Economic Modernization Without Political Reform: The Shah embarked on a modernization program, including land reforms and industrial development, but did not allow corresponding political liberalization.
These consequences generated a political culture of repression and resistance, directly shaping the contours of opposition that culminated in the 1979 revolution.
From Coup to Revolution: Political Authoritarianism
One of the most direct links between the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution was the transformation of Iran’s political structure from a fragile constitutional monarchy to a centralized autocracy. After 1953, the Shah systematically dismantled political pluralism. The Majlis (parliament) became a rubber-stamp institution, and political dissent was criminalized.
The SAVAK, established with CIA and Mossad assistance, became notorious for surveillance, torture, and executions. The lack of legitimate political avenues for dissent created a pressure-cooker environment in which opposition had no outlet but revolution.
This authoritarian legacy had its roots in the coup. By removing Mossadegh—a symbol of democratic nationalism—and reasserting monarchical control, the coup undermined the possibility of constitutional governance. In 1979, one of the revolution’s most vocal demands was for political freedom and justice, concepts long denied under the post-coup regime.
Anti-Western Sentiment and the Legacy of Foreign Intervention
The 1953 coup left a psychological scar on the Iranian national consciousness. The blatant interference of the U.S. and U.K. in Iran’s internal affairs was seen as humiliating and treacherous. This event became a foundational narrative in Iranian political discourse, especially among Islamists and nationalists.
Ayatollah Khomeini frequently referenced the 1953 coup in his speeches, portraying the Shah as a puppet of Western imperialism. The revolution’s slogan "Neither East nor West, only the Islamic Republic" reflected deep-seated disillusionment with both Cold War superpowers, particularly the United States.
This anti-imperialist narrative gained traction not only among the clergy but also among students, intellectuals, and leftist groups. The coup served as an archetype of foreign exploitation, justifying the revolution as a reclaiming of Iranian sovereignty.
Socio-Economic Disparities and Unfulfilled Promises
While the Shah's "White Revolution" sought to modernize Iran’s economy, it exacerbated inequality and disrupted traditional social structures. Land reforms displaced millions of peasants without providing stable alternatives, while rapid urbanization led to overcrowded cities and unemployment.
These conditions were rooted, in part, in the post-coup regime's reliance on oil revenues and foreign investment rather than inclusive economic development. The focus on modernization without democratization led to socio-economic dislocation, especially among the urban poor and the bazaar class—groups that would become crucial supporters of the revolution.
Moreover, by sidelining indigenous institutions and concentrating power in the monarchy, the Shah failed to build a sustainable political economy. These socio-economic grievances found ideological expression in revolutionary rhetoric, often framed in opposition to the inequality and perceived decadence of the post-coup regime.
Ideological Mobilization: Islamism, Nationalism, and Historical Memory
The ideological foundation of the 1979 revolution was deeply influenced by historical memory of the 1953 coup. While Mossadegh himself was a secular nationalist, his image was later appropriated by various factions as a symbol of resistance. Khomeini and his followers presented the revolution as both a spiritual and nationalistic struggle against tyranny, invoking the betrayal of 1953 as evidence of the Shah’s illegitimacy.
Ali Shariati, a sociologist and one of the revolution’s intellectual architects, blended Islamic thought with Marxist critique, echoing themes of anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism. The coup was frequently cited in his lectures as a turning point when Iran’s destiny was hijacked by foreign powers.
Thus, the ideological mobilization of 1979 was not just religious—it was rooted in a historical narrative shaped by the 1953 coup. This fusion of Islamism and nationalism provided a potent framework for collective action.
Counterarguments and Other Contributing Factors
While the 1953 coup was undoubtedly significant, the 1979 revolution had multiple causes that extend beyond this singular event:
Religious Leadership: The unique role of the clergy, particularly Khomeini’s charisma and theological legitimacy, was crucial in organizing mass opposition. This religious dimension was not a direct result of the coup.
Oil Boom and Bust: The economic volatility of the 1970s, particularly inflation and unemployment following the oil boom, exacerbated public discontent.
Global Revolutionary Climate: The 1960s and 70s witnessed a surge in revolutionary movements worldwide, influencing Iranian activists.
Demographic Explosion: Iran's population growth created a large youth demographic with few economic or political opportunities.
These factors illustrate that while the coup was foundational, it interacted with other variables to produce the revolutionary outcome.
Conclusion
To a considerable extent, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was a consequence of the 1953 coup d'état. The coup disrupted Iran’s democratic development, entrenched authoritarian rule, and seeded deep anti-Western sentiments that pervaded Iranian political culture for decades. It reshaped Iran’s political structure, suppressed opposition, and established a regime that would eventually face overwhelming resistance.
However, the revolution cannot be reduced solely to the events of 1953. It was the product of a confluence of long-term historical processes, immediate grievances, and ideological innovation. The coup served as a catalyst and structural foundation upon which subsequent events unfolded, but it was not the sole cause.
In the final analysis, the 1953 coup created the conditions of authoritarianism, dependency, and political repression that made the 1979 revolution not only possible but, in the eyes of many Iranians, necessary.
Bibliography
Abrahamian, Ervand. Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton University Press, 1982.
Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
Keddie, Nikki R., and Yann Richard. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Yale University Press, 2006.
Takeyh, Ray. Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic. Times Books, 2006.
Gasiorowski, Mark J. “The 1953 Coup D'état in Iran.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 1987, pp. 261–286.
CIA, The Battle for Iran, Declassified Document, National Security Archive.
Shariati, Ali. Marxism and Other Western Fallacies: An Islamic Critique. Mizan Press, 1980.
My References
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (June 16 version)[Large language model].https://chat.openai.com/
