On Paper 1 you get a set of sources — usually three, labelled A, B and C — all about one inquiry question from your focused study. You never answer that inquiry question directly.
Instead, you always answer the SAME three questions about the sources themselves. Learn this pattern once and it works for every focused study, including Climate and innovation.
- Q1 — Content [6 marks] — explain how what TWO sources actually say or show helps answer the inquiry question.
- Q2 — Context [6 marks] — analyse how a source's origin, purpose, time and place shape how you can use it.
- Q3 — Perspectives [12 marks] — examine how the viewpoints across ALL the sources agree or differ.
Content = what it says: Content is simply the information inside the source — names, numbers, events, descriptions. For Q1, your job is to pull out specific details and explain how each one helps answer the inquiry question.
Here is a worked example. Imagine a source set exploring the inquiry question 'What innovations took place?' for Norse exploration.
Source A (saga extract): 'Leif took his ship west from Greenland and found a land of wild grapes, which he named Vinland.' Source B (archaeological report): 'Excavations at L'Anse aux Meadows uncovered Norse-style turf buildings, iron rivets, and a smithy — evidence of a temporary settlement.'
To answer Q1, you take a detail from EACH source and explain how it answers the question. Source A's content shows the Norse were exploring new sea routes westward and naming new lands. Source B's content shows they built real settlements with their own technology, not just camped briefly. Together, both details show innovation was both in navigation AND in settlement-building.
Never use just one source: Using only Source A OR only Source B caps your Q1 mark at 3 out of 6. The examiner wants to see you connect content across two different sources, not describe one in detail.
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.
Every source has a provenance — a background story about who created it, when, where, and why. That background is its context, and it is the whole focus of Q2.
Context isn't a side note — it directly shapes what a source is USEFUL and NOT useful for. A source can be reliable for one thing and shaky for another, depending on its origin and purpose.
1. Origin
Who made it, and when/where? A firsthand Aztec pictorial record differs hugely from a Spanish account written decades later.
2. Purpose
Why was it made? A tribute list made for imperial record-keeping serves a different goal than a saga meant to entertain.
3. Value and limitation
Explain what the origin/purpose makes the source GOOD for, and what it makes harder to trust.
Origin, purpose, then value/limitation — always in that order.
Worked example: imagine a source exploring 'How did climate conditions shape innovation?' for the Aztec Empire.
Source C: an account written by a Spanish friar around 1570, describing Aztec responses to the drought and famine known as 'One Rabbit', drawing on interviews with elderly survivors decades after the events, intended to record Aztec history for a European readership.
For Q2, you would explain: its origin (a friar interviewing elderly survivors) gives it value as a record that preserves Indigenous memory that might otherwise be lost. But its purpose (writing for a European audience) and the decades-long time gap are a limitation — memories fade, and details may be shaped to suit what Spanish readers expected to hear.
Context ≠ just naming facts: Don't just state 'this source was written in 1570 by a friar' and stop — that only describes context. You must ANALYSE how that origin and purpose shapes what the source can and can't be used for. That's the difference between a low mark and a high one.
| Context clue | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Written soon after the event, by a participant | Likely detailed, but may be biased by personal involvement |
| Written long after, by an outsider | May lack firsthand detail, shaped by the audience it was written for |
| Made for record-keeping (tribute lists, official reports) | Useful for facts and figures, but may hide inconvenient details |
| Made for storytelling (sagas, oral tradition) | Useful for values and memory, but facts may blend with legend |
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Perspective is about whose viewpoint a source represents — and Q3 asks you to examine how perspectives across ALL the sources compare on the inquiry question.
Perspectives can corroborate each other (agree and support one another) or they can contradict each other. Both outcomes are useful — you just have to explain WHY they agree or disagree.
Worked example: two sources on the inquiry question 'What factors prompted innovation?' — one Norse, one Aztec-style, to show the comparison skill.
Source A — Norse saga extract
- Perspective: told from inside Norse culture, generations later, celebrating Erik the Red's boldness.
- Frames innovation (new sea routes, new settlements) as driven by heroic ambition and daring.
- Leaves out everyday pressures like shortage of farmland back home.
Source B — Norse land-survey record
- Perspective: a practical, near-contemporary account made to log available farmland in Greenland.
- Frames innovation as a response to population pressure and lack of arable land.
- Leaves out personal ambition and any sense of adventure.
To answer Q3, you'd explain that the two sources give different but not necessarily contradictory perspectives: one focuses on individual ambition, the other on economic necessity. Together, they show the inquiry question has more than one valid answer — innovation was driven by both push (land shortage) and pull (ambition) factors.
Cover every source for top marks: The markbands cap your score if you leave sources out: using only one source caps Q3 at 6/12, and only two sources caps it at 9/12. To reach 10–12, you must examine the perspective of every source in the set.
- If perspectives agree — say so, and explain why (same time period, similar position, shared goal).
- If perspectives disagree — say so, and explain why (different roles, different audiences, different purposes).
- Always link back — every comparison must connect to the inquiry question, not just describe the sources in isolation.