Every Paper 1 exam gives you three sources — A, B and C — all built around one inquiry question. Each source has two halves: Content (what it actually says or shows) and Context (who made it, when, and why).
Question 1 [6] tests content only. It asks you to explain how the content of Source A and Source B can be used to answer the inquiry question — always two named sources, never one.
What Q1 actually rewards: Not describing the source ("Source A says the camps were overcrowded"). It rewards explaining the link: this detail helps answer the inquiry question because it shows a specific cause, effect, or experience.
- Pick a specific detail, not a general summary — a number, a named policy, a described event.
- Say what it shows — link the detail directly to the wording of the inquiry question.
- Do this for both sources — Q1 [6] splits roughly 3 marks per source; using only one caps you at 3/6.
- Avoid vague reliability talk — "it is a primary source so it is useful" earns almost nothing without a content-specific reason.
The same approach works for the Indochina example. If Source B were a 1980 interview transcript with a Hmong refugee describing weeks of walking through Laos to reach a Thai camp, the strong move is to name that detail (weeks of walking, fear of pursuit) and tie it straight to the inquiry question about how displacement was experienced by different groups.
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.
Question 2 [6] switches focus entirely: it is always about Source C's context, not its content. Context means the source's provenance — origin, purpose, time and place.
Origin
Who created this source? A government body, an aid agency, a survivor, a journalist?
Purpose
Why was it made — to inform policy, to appeal for funds, to record memory, to persuade the public?
Time & place
When and where was it produced — during the crisis, or looking back years later?
Origin, Purpose, Time and place — OPTP shapes how far you can trust and use a source.
Context shapes USE, not just trust: Don't just label a source "biased" or "reliable" — explain what its origin and purpose lets you use it FOR. An official report is strong for policy detail even if it downplays criticism.
The same logic applies to Europe: a 1946 UNRRA administrative report is strong on camp numbers and logistics (that was its job), but weaker as evidence of how displaced people actually felt, because that was never its purpose.
Feeling unprepared for exams?
Get a clear study plan, practice with real questions, and know exactly where you stand before exam day. No more guessing.
Question 3 [12] is the biggest question and the hardest to score well on. It asks you to examine how the perspectives in all three sources can be used to answer the inquiry question.
You must use all three sources: The markbands are explicit: using only one source caps you at 6/12, and using only two caps you at 9/12. To reach 10-12 you must engage with every source's perspective.
Where perspectives agree (corroboration)
- A UNRRA relief report and a DP camp survivor's memoir can both describe severe overcrowding in 1946 — independent sources reaching the same conclusion strengthens the claim.
- A UNHCR record and a Hmong refugee testimony can both describe long, dangerous journeys out of Laos after 1975.
Where perspectives differ
- A US government memo may frame the Orderly Departure Program as an efficient success, while a refugee's diary describes the same process as slow and frightening.
- An Allied government report may stress the challenge of resettlement, while a survivor's testimony stresses relief at simply escaping danger.
A strong Q3 answer does not just list these — it explains why the perspectives differ, usually by pointing back to each source's origin and purpose (the same OPTP thinking from Q2), and then judges what that means for answering the inquiry question.
Structure that works under time pressure: Take the sources in turn (A, then B, then C), note each one's perspective on the inquiry question in a sentence, then spend your final paragraph explicitly comparing: where they agree, where they clash, and what that combined picture tells us.