🔍 Detail
The facts, claims or actions mentioned. Do both give the same one, or a different one?
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseQuestion (b) in Paper 2 Section A is worth 8 marks out of the 30 for the option. It tests AO3: using sources. You get two written sources, A and B, from the time you have studied. The question is always in this form:
"Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the issue? Explain your answer."
Our guide is about 12 minutes for this question. This is our guide, not an official rule.
Key terms:
You are not asked to judge which source is right, or how reliable it is. You only compare what the two sources say. Facts from memory earn nothing here. Save your own knowledge for question (c). Using the sources and an extract together is explained in Paper 2 Section A Question (c): Judging an Interpretation.
Read both sources twice. Then look for points where they meet and points where they part. Compare in three ways:
The facts, claims or actions mentioned. Do both give the same one, or a different one?
What each source cares about most. The same event can be a small part of one source and the main point of the other.
How each one sounds: angry, calm, proud, worried or hopeful. Pick out the words that show it.
Quote from both sources for every point. Keep each quotation short, a few words, and say which source it comes from. A point with a quotation from only one source is not a cross-reference.
That is about 150 to 200 words. In plain words, the marking works like this: spotting one agreement or one difference, with little use of the sources, is at the bottom. Support or difference backed by the sources is in the middle, and you need both to reach the top of that band. The top band cross-refers the sources and explains the extent of support. Levels are explained in What Examiners Reward: Assessment Objectives and Levels.
This is just an example. You do not need to study this period. Here is a fact file so anyone can follow it (in the exam you get none).
From the platform of the Republican Party for the 1928 presidential election
"... 'The Constitution which at any time exists until changed by the explicit and authentic act by the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.' ... The people through the method provided by the Constitution have written the Eighteenth Amendment into the Constitution. The Republican Party pledges itself and its nominees to the observance and vigorous enforcement of this provision of the Constitution."
From the platform of the Democratic Party for the 1932 presidential election
"We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. ... we urge the enactment of such measures by the several states as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states."
Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about Prohibition? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B in a small way, because both treat drink as something the law must control. Source A pledges "vigorous enforcement" of the Amendment, and Source B wants the liquor trade under "complete supervision and control by the states". Both want firm control of alcohol.
However, the sources differ in detail. Source A wants the Eighteenth Amendment kept, saying the people "have written" it into the Constitution, but Source B says "We advocate the repeal" of it. They differ in emphasis too. Source A is about obeying a rule that already exists, whereas Source B is about what should replace it, to "prevent the return of the saloon". Their tone also differs: Source A is firm, with "pledges" and "vigorous", while Source B is practical and offers a plan to "promote temperance".
Overall, Source A supports Source B only to a limited extent. They share a wish for control, but disagree on the main point: whether Prohibition should continue at all.
Source A says Prohibition is good and Source B says it is bad. Prohibition caused lots of crime in the 1920s, so Source B is right.
What lifts it: the weaker answer spots one difference with no quotations, brings in own knowledge that earns nothing here, and never says how far. The strong answer shows support and difference, quotes both sources every time, and ends with a judgement.
New topic, new fact file. Write three short paragraphs.
From a speech by Emmeline Pankhurst, leader of the Women's Social and Political Union, in Hartford, USA, 13 November 1913
"... when damage is done to property it is not done in order to convert people to woman suffrage at all. It is a practical political means, the only means we consider open to voteless persons ... The first people who were put out of a political meeting for asking questions, were women; they were brutally ill-used; they found themselves in jail before twenty-four hours had expired."
From a book by Millicent Fawcett, leader of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, published in 1912
"... They never weakened in their conviction that constitutional agitation was not only right in itself, but would prove far more effective in the long run than any display of physical violence, as a means of converting the electorate ... to a belief in women's suffrage. ... the brutal severity with which some of the militant suffragists were treated gave suffragists of all parties another subject on which they were in agreement."
Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the campaign for votes for women? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B on how campaigners were treated. Source A says women who asked questions were "brutally ill-used" and jailed within a day, and Source B also describes "the brutal severity" with which militant suffragists were treated. Both agree the treatment was harsh, and both writers criticise it.
The sources differ in detail about methods. Source A defends damage to property as "a practical political means", but Source B believes "constitutional agitation" would be "far more effective" than "physical violence". They differ in emphasis too. Source A is mainly about why voteless women turned to militancy, whereas Source B is mainly about winning over the electorate and Parliament. The tone differs: Source A is defiant, calling damage "the only means" open to women, while Source B sounds patient, with "never weakened in their conviction".
Overall, Source A supports Source B only to a limited extent. They share anger at harsh treatment, but disagree on the central question of whether damage and violence were the right way to win the vote.
Before you write, put a tick beside one agreement and one difference, and underline a few words from each source for both. Then your quotations are ready and you can write straight through.