How significant was parliamentary radicalism in the breakdown of relations between Crown and Parliament in the years 1625 to 1629?

When a question asks how significant one particular factor was to an event, it's advisable to make that factor the key focus of your answer; it isn't asking whether other factors were more or less significant, just how significant this one was. So with that in mind, it's often best to keep one solid line of argument throughout the essay, rather than a 'for and against' style - just decide whether you think parliamentary radicalism was significant or not (based on evidence of course), and run with that.You should start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that displays what you'll be writing about. For example, something like 'While King Charles claimed that Parliament had radicalised by 1629, this was not the case,' works well because the reader knows immediately what you're arguing in this paragraph. Following that, it's time for some evidence; for this question, you might choose to use parliamentary acts such as the 1628 Petition of Right or the Three Resolutions of 1629, or indeed King Charles' actions, like the 1626 Forced Loan or 1627 Five Knights Case. After you've stated your evidence, it's time to analyse. For instance, you could argue that while Charles saw the Petition of Right as a radical act of defiance against the king, in reality it was just a confirmation of the liberties enshrined in Magna Carta, so parliamentary radicalism was not significant because it simply wasn't there. Do this style of paragraph two or three times, and then end with a conclusion that sums up your argument concisely; a reader should be able to read just your conclusion and get the gist of the whole essay.