"The war crisis was the primary factor behind the emergence of government by Terror in 1793" How far do you agree?

This is a classic A level History question from one of the most examined(and most-difficult) parts of the French Revolution course. The important thing here is not to panic, and to break it down. Step 1 would be to define terms, here "government by Terror", for which I would probably state it was the centralised use of violence to achieve political aims. To hit a top band mark a quote could also be used, such as the October 1793 resolution by the National Convention to be "revolutionary until the peace". Also, taking a close look at the question you can see it only refers to 1793, and therefore you must be careful to refer to only events in that year, and not after ; a common mistake is to for example refer to laws passed in 1794 such as the Law of Prairial.
Step 2 after you set this out would be to come up with themes. What an examiner is looking for here is not a series of paragraphs which are entirely separate, but a linked series of ideas with a consistent line of argument running through. I would agree here with the question, and focus on The War Crisis, Internal Threats, and the Sans-Culotte Response to Economic Issues, but in each of my themes would constantly refer back to why the war was the key cause. For example, I would firstly speak about how the war crisis caused a deep feeling of paranoia within France, as the defection of leaders such as Dumouriez after defeat created a sense that the war effort was being sabotaged by enemies within, which was then confirmed when rebellions linked themselves to outside enemies, such as federalist rebels handing over Toulon to the British. I could also talk about a cycle, the war forcing events which then forced Terror, such as conscription being made necessary causing the Vendee rebellion which then forced the use of extraordinary methods by the Committee of Public Safety and the set up of Terrorist Institutions.
I would then move on to my other themes, but each of them would again link back to the war itself. I would talk about internal threats but mention that they were seen as so critical due to them potentially compromising focus on the war effort, for example the less extreme stance of the Girondins which seemed treasonous when emergency methods were required to save the nation, and when their own figures defected (Dumouriez was a Girondin). I could also mention how rebels in the Vendee did not see themselves as rebels, but as an active part of the war effort against Revolutionary France, alongside Britain, Austria etc., and were treated with the same methods as wartime enemies did, representatives-on mission being sent to the rebellious provinces and to frontline armies fighting the Austrians. Similarly, the sans-culottes were important as their demands for Maximum Prices stemmed from their idea that there were traitors hoarding grain and other essentials, and in order to appear sufficiently revolutionary the Convention was forced to follow their demands. Remember, Terror has to be centralised, and so in response the Convention created institutions to take power from the sans-culotte mob and deal with situations from the centre. But, even when the sans-culottes were dealt with after the Law of Frimaire the Terror continued, why? Because its main focus was not just subduing mob demands but ensuring that they were subdued along with internal rebels to continue the war. By continually linking everything together in this way, and showing a consistent line of argument focussing on the war, a top level mark can be achieved