Paper 1 source skills — Protest and change

Paper 1 always gives you three sources — A, B, C — about your focused study. They sit around one inquiry question inquiry question, like "How did the protest movement challenge authority?"

Question 1 is worth 6 marks. It asks you to use the content of Source A and Source B — meaning what the source actually says or shows — to help answer the inquiry question. You are not judging the source yet. You are just mining it for useful information.

Content = what's inside the source: Content is the facts, opinions, and details written or drawn in the source itself. For Q1, read each source slowly and pull out specific points — not vague impressions.

Worked source — a NOW pamphlet, 1968: Imagine Source A is a flyer from the National Organization for Women NOW that reads: "Women are paid less for the same work. We demand equal pay laws and an end to job discrimination."

For content, you could write: this source shows unequal pay was a specific grievance driving the movement, and that NOW's strategy was to demand legal change, not just raise awareness.

Question 2 is also worth 6 marks, but it works on Source C, and it asks about context, not content. Context is everything around the source: who made it, when, where, and why.

The four context questions: Always ask: who is the origin origin — a journalist? A government? Who is the purpose purpose for? What is the time, and what is the place?

You are not just naming the context — you are analysing how it shapes the source's usefulness. A government minister's speech and a protester's diary entry from the same week can say very different things, because their origin and purpose are different.

Worked source — a Tunisian state radio broadcast, January 2011: Imagine Source C is a transcript of a state radio broadcast from mid-January 2011, days before President Ben Ali fled the country. It announces "calm has returned to the streets" and praises the government's response.

For context: this is an official state broadcast (origin), made to reassure the public and defend the regime (purpose), issued right at the peak of the unrest (time). That purpose means it likely understates the scale of the protests — useful for showing the regime's official narrative, but it must be checked against other evidence for what was actually happening.

Don't just describe — analyse: "This source was written by a journalist in 2011" only describes context. Add: "...which means it is useful for X, but limited because Y" to turn description into analysis, which is what earns marks 5–6.

Question 3 is the big one — 12 marks. It asks you to examine the perspectives perspective in ALL THREE sources, and how they can be used to answer the inquiry question.

A perspective is not the same as content. Content is what a source says; perspective is the standpoint behind what it says — whose side it's on, what it values, what it leaves out.

Perspectives can agree or clash: Sometimes two sources support each other (same perspective, different angle). Sometimes they clash completely. Top-band Q3 answers examine BOTH similarities and differences across all three sources — not just list them one by one.

Worked comparison — feminist activist vs. a 1970s newspaper editorial: Source A (a NOW activist's speech) argues employers deliberately excluded women from good jobs. Source B (a 1972 newspaper editorial) argues change was already happening naturally as attitudes modernised, downplaying the need for legal action like Title IX Title IX.

These sources clash: the activist frames change as a hard-won political fight; the editorial frames it as gradual and inevitable. Comparing them lets you examine how perspective shapes the story of "what changes were achieved."

Use all three, or you're capped: Q3 needs ALL sources. Discussing only one caps you at 6/12; only two caps you at 9/12 — even with brilliant analysis. Always work every source into your answer.