History

1. 1.

   An original fictional diary entry says: 'The factory gates stayed shut, but the mayor said recovery had begun.' Explain one value and one limitation of this source for investigating local economic recovery.

   [3 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Separate observation from reported speech: closed gates are the writer's observation, while recovery is attributed to the mayor.
   2. The contrast is useful for studying a gap between official messaging and lived experience, but not enough to estimate the entire economy.
   3. Because this is a fictional practice source, do not cite it as evidence for a real historical event.

   Marking points

   • It may provide evidence of an individual's observation of a factory and perception of official claims.
   • One factory or diarist may not represent the whole local economy; access and accuracy must be assessed.
   • Corroborate with production/employment records or independent contemporary accounts.

   Examiner tip: Usefulness is relative to the enquiry. Bias does not make a source automatically useless.

2. 2.

   Three newspapers repeat the same government statement about a protest. A student says this is three independent confirmations. Assess that claim and suggest stronger corroboration.

   [4 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Count information origins rather than merely the number of publications.
   2. The newspapers could still be valuable for analysing how an official narrative spread.
   3. Corroboration is stronger when sources have distinct origins and relevant access, but agreement still requires contextual evaluation.

   Marking points

   • The reports may share one source rather than independently establish the event.
   • Repetition establishes circulation of a claim, not necessarily its truth.
   • Investigate provenance, editorial context and whether journalists witnessed events.
   • Compare genuinely independent evidence such as eyewitness accounts, records or photographs, assessing their own limitations.

   Examiner tip: Independent provenance matters more than the number of repeated reports.

3. 3.

   Interpretation A attributes a political reform chiefly to popular pressure; interpretation B emphasises divisions among leaders. Using a reform you have studied, plan an evaluation that tests both interpretations rather than choosing one in advance.

   [5 marks] · no calculator

   Answer explanation

   Draft walkthroughs are based on marking guidance, not independently verified derivations.

   1. Use one well-defined case so the comparison concerns the same outcome and timeframe.
   2. Ask whether pressure preceded decisions, how leaders responded and whether divisions changed the effect of that pressure.
   3. An evaluation can conclude that factors reinforced each other. It need not force an either/or answer, but it must weigh their roles.

   Marking points

   • Define the reform, period and what each interpretation claims caused change.
   • Use accurate, specific evidence to test the scale and timing of popular pressure.
   • Test leadership divisions with relevant evidence, not assumption.
   • Examine interaction, chronology and alternative explanations.
   • Reach a qualified judgement about relative importance, supported by the chosen case.

   Examiner tip: A plan needs case-specific evidence before it becomes a full historical argument. These points are not a substitute for set-period knowledge.

Original, unofficial practice questions from SubjectScout — not official past-paper questions.