Paper 1 gives you a small set of sources — usually three — about one inquiry question. You never answer from memory alone. Everything you write has to come from what the sources actually show you.
There are two very different things a source can tell you. Its content is WHAT it says. Its context is WHO made it, WHEN, WHERE, and WHY — sometimes called its origin and purpose.
Content answers 'what', context answers 'who/when/why': A 1963 speech by Jomo Kenyatta has content (what he says about independence) and context (he is Kenya's incoming leader, speaking publicly at the moment of independence, to unite the new nation). Both matter — but for different questions.
Take a short worked example. Imagine Source A is a 1791 letter from a French colonial administrator in Saint-Domingue (Haiti), warning Paris that 'outside agitators' had stirred up the enslaved population to revolt.
- Content — the letter claims the uprising was caused by outsiders, not by conditions in the colony.
- Origin — a French official, writing privately to his own government, in 1791, from inside the colony.
- Purpose — most likely to reassure Paris and avoid blame for failing to control the colony.
- Why it matters — an official worried about his own reputation is unlikely to admit that decades of brutal slavery caused the revolt.
Notice how the SAME source gives you both a content point (what caused the revolt, according to this writer) and a context point (why this writer might shape the truth). Learning to pull both out of one source is the core Paper 1 skill.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Q1 asks you to explain how the CONTENT of two named sources can be used to answer the inquiry question. Worth 6 marks, so you need real depth on two sources — not a summary of everything they contain.
Step 1 — state the point
Say what the source's content shows about the inquiry question.
Step 2 — quote or paraphrase precisely
Point to the specific detail in the source, not a vague impression.
Step 3 — link it to the inquiry question
Explain exactly HOW this content helps answer the question asked, not a different one.
Point → Detail → Link — do this for BOTH named sources.
Worked example for Q1: inquiry question — 'How was independence achieved in Kenya?' Source B is a 1952 government emergency declaration; Source C is a 1963 memoir by a former Kenya African Union organiser.
| Source | Content point | Link to inquiry question |
|---|---|---|
| Source B (1952 declaration) | Declares a State of Emergency in response to Mau Mau attacks | Shows the British used force and law to try to hold onto power |
| Source C (1963 memoir) | Describes organising strikes and political meetings before 1952 | Shows resistance was also political, not only armed |
Never just retell the story: Examiners repeatedly warn against 'content-only' answers that summarise a source with no analytic link. Always finish each point with 'this helps answer the inquiry question because...'.
Q2 is different: it asks you to analyse how the CONTEXT of ONE named source shapes how it can be used. Worth 6 marks, for ONE source only — but you must go deep on origin, purpose, time and place.
- Origin — who made it and where they stood (insider, outsider, official, ordinary person).
- Purpose — why it was made: to record, persuade, justify, or entertain.
- Time and place — was it made during the events, or years later with hindsight?
- So what? — always end by saying HOW this shapes its value or limitation for the inquiry question.
Worked example for Q2: Source A, Dessalines's 1804 Haitian Declaration of Independence. Origin — written by Haiti's new leader, immediately after independence. Purpose — to legitimise the new state and rally Haitians. This context makes it a powerful record of how Haiti's leaders WANTED independence to be seen, but it is not a neutral account of the war's human cost.
Practice with real exam questions
Answer exam-style questions and get AI feedback that shows you exactly what examiners want to see in a full-marks response.
Q3 is worth 12 marks — double the others — because it asks you to examine perspectives across ALL the sources in the set, not just one or two.
A perspective is the viewpoint a source reflects: coloniser or colonised, government or rebel, elite or ordinary person. Sources rarely agree completely — and the marks reward you for explaining WHY they differ.
Source A — French colonial administrator (1791)
- Blames 'outside agitators' for the uprising
- Written to protect his own position with Paris
- Silent on decades of slavery and abuse
Source B — formerly enslaved Haitian leader's account
- Blames brutal treatment and demand for freedom
- Written to justify the fight for liberty
- Directly describes conditions under slavery
These two sources disagree sharply on WHY the Haitian Revolution began. A strong Q3 answer does not just say 'they disagree' — it explains that each author's own position (coloniser trying to avoid blame vs. a formerly enslaved leader justifying the struggle) shaped what they chose to say.
Step 1 — identify each source's perspective
Whose viewpoint does each source represent?
Step 2 — group agreement and conflict
Which sources broadly agree? Which clash, and on what exactly?
Step 3 — explain WHY the perspectives differ
Link each gap to the author's position, purpose, or distance from events.
Step 4 — return to the inquiry question
Say what the range of perspectives, taken together, tells us about the question.
Identify → Group → Explain the gap → Answer the question.
A gap in the sources is also a perspective point: If none of your sources represent ordinary Kikuyu women during the Mau Mau Uprising, say so — the ABSENCE of a perspective is itself something a historian must notice and account for.
Common mistake: Don't just say a source is 'biased' and stop there. Explain WHOSE side it shows, and how that shapes what a historian can and cannot learn from it.