Paper 1 gives you a small set of sources — usually three, labelled A, B and C — all about one inquiry question from your focused study. This micro-topic is your toolkit for reading and using them.
Question 1 is worth 6 marks. It asks you to explain how the content of TWO named sources helps answer the inquiry question. Content just means: what does the source actually say or show?
The Q1 method: For each of the two sources: (1) pick a specific detail from the source, (2) quote or describe it precisely, (3) explain exactly how that detail answers the inquiry question. Do this twice per source for full marks — four linked points in total.
Worked source: a Meiji government notice (1868): Imagine Source A is a short notice issued by the new Meiji government in 1868, announcing that the old Tokugawa Shogunate Tokugawa Shogunate has ended and that the Emperor Mutsuhito now rules directly. It says samurai will lose their special legal privileges within a few years.
Two content points from Source A
- Content point 1: the notice states the Shogunate has ended and imperial rule is restored. This directly answers 'what caused the transition?' by showing the political break happened fast, from the top.
- Content point 2: the promise to strip samurai privileges shows the new government's economic and social intentions. This helps answer 'how was the transition achieved?' because it signals reform was starting immediately, not gradually.
- Be specific — 'the source mentions reform' is too vague; name the actual reform (land tax, privatization, a rebellion) for the mark.
- Link every detail back to the inquiry question — content on its own earns nothing; the explanation of relevance earns the mark.
- Use two different sources — Q1 always names two; using content from a third source earns no extra credit.
- Do not discuss context or perspective in Q1 — that is Q2 and Q3; keep Q1 purely about what the source says.
Two points per source, not one long paragraph: Examiners mark Q1 point-by-point. Four short, clearly separated points (two per source) score higher than one flowing paragraph that blurs the detail with the explanation.
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 with your first topic free to keep:
- 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.
Question 2 is also worth 6 marks, but it asks about only ONE named source.
Instead of what it says, you now analyse context — who made it, when, where, and why — and explain how that context affects its value and limitation for answering the inquiry question.
Origin
Who created the source, and when/where? A government minister writing in 1993 knows different things than a journalist writing decades later.
Purpose
Why was it made? A speech to reassure voters is not written the same way as a private letter or a later historian's textbook.
Value
What does this origin and purpose make the source GOOD for? Insider knowledge, eyewitness detail, or an official record are all valuable.
Limitation
What does it make the source WEAK for? Bias, hindsight, or a narrow viewpoint are all limitations — always pair with the value.
Origin and Purpose feed Value and Limitation — OPVL for short.
Worked source: Yeltsin's 1993 televised address: Imagine Source B is a televised speech by President Yeltsin Yeltsin in October 1993, right after tanks shelled the parliament building during the constitutional crisis. He explains why he dissolved parliament and defends the new draft constitution.
Analysing Source B
- Origin/purpose: Yeltsin, the president under direct political attack, speaking on national television to justify his own actions. This source has a clear personal stake in the outcome.
- Value: as the person at the centre of events, he has direct, first-hand knowledge of the decisions and pressures involved. It is valuable for understanding the government's reasoning.
- Limitation: his political survival depended on this crisis being seen as necessary, so the speech is likely to downplay the violence and present his actions as the only option. It is limited for judging how justified the crisis really was.
Value and limitation must connect to the inquiry question: Do not just say 'this source is biased' — bias alone earns little. Explain what the source IS useful for (given its origin/purpose) and what it is NOT useful for, always tied back to the specific inquiry question being asked.
A common trap is treating value and limitation as separate boxes to tick. In strong answers, the SAME piece of context (e.g. 'written by the person under attack') produces both the value (inside knowledge) and the limitation (motive to justify himself) — one cause, two effects.
Memorize terms 3x faster
Smart flashcards show you cards right before you forget them. Perfect for definitions and key concepts.
Question 3 is the big one — 12 marks — and it uses ALL the sources together (usually three). It asks you to examine how their perspectives can be used to answer the inquiry question.
Three things to ask
- Where do the sources agree?
- Where do they disagree?
- Why might that be?
Perspective is not the same as bias: A perspective is the particular angle or position someone views events from because of who they are — a peasant, a reformer, a foreign observer. Every source has one; that is not a flaw to criticise, it is something to explain and use.
Source A — a Satsuma samurai's memoir (1877)
- Writes after the failed Satsuma Rebellion Satsuma Rebellion
- Describes the loss of samurai status as a betrayal of tradition
- Perspective: an insider losing power, focused on social cost
Source B — a Meiji official's report (1877)
- Written for the government explaining the rebellion's defeat
- Frames the crushing of Satsuma as proof reforms were working
- Perspective: a reformer defending progress, focused on political success
Both sources describe the same 1877 rebellion, so they agree on WHAT happened. But they disagree sharply on WHY it mattered — one sees tragedy, the other sees necessary progress. That disagreement is itself evidence: it shows the Meiji transition created real losers as well as winners, which helps answer an inquiry question about the transition's challenges.
Find agreement
Where do two or more sources support the same point? Agreement across different perspectives makes a claim more convincing.
Find disagreement
Where do sources conflict? Explain WHY, using each source's origin — different positions in society produce different views.
Use both to answer the question
Do not just describe the agreement/disagreement — say what it lets you conclude about the inquiry question.
Agree, disagree, then answer — perspective evidence only counts once you use it.
Reference all the sources by letter: Q3 expects you to work across the full set (Source A, B and C), not just two. Markers look for explicit comparison — phrases like 'unlike Source A, Source C shows...' score well.