How to structure 01 A Level Stuarts answers

What is it? In the exam it is the mandatory question – you will have no choice! You will spend an hour on it You will be given three extracts and a question worded like this: Using your understanding of the historical context, assess how convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to… You are being tested on A03: ‘Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, different ways in which aspects of the past have been interpreted.’

How will it be marked?

What do you need to be able to do to get a Level 5? L5: Shows a very good understanding of the interpretations put forward in all three extracts and combines this with a strong awareness of the historical context to analyse and evaluate the interpretations given in the extracts. Evaluation of the arguments will be well-supported and convincing. The response demonstrates a very good understanding of context. 25-30

What do you need to be able to do to get a Level 5? L5: Shows a very good understanding of the interpretations put forward in all three extracts and combines this with a strong awareness of the historical context to analyse and evaluate the interpretations given in the extracts. Evaluation of the arguments will be well-supported and convincing. The response demonstrates a very good understanding of context. 25-30 Show that you understand what the Extract is arguing and can write it in your own words Show that you can pick out the sub-arguments and provide supporting points or points to counter Show that you can, based on the analysis you’ve done, come to a judgement about how convincing the arguments therefore are Show that you can support that judgement with specific and detailed historical knowledge.

How to approach the 01 Question Not the same as AS 01 Questions! No need for a conclusion or judgement on the most convincing Important that the focus is on interpretation and argument rather than just the factual content of the extract Support your views on how convincing the argument is with contextual understanding Include balance in your evaluation identify parts that are less convincing Come to an overall view that states how convincing the arguments in the extract are

Structure Identify argument - In your own words, write down the main interpretation given in Extract A to show you understand it Analyse argument - Then identify approx. 3 sub-arguments that support that overall interpretation – you can use a quote to show that is how the extract is supporting their interpretation Evaluate argument based on historical understanding - For each sub- argument you need to explain that it is or is not convincing and support your point with specific and detailed evidence from your contextual knowledge or challenge it based on your knowledge Clearly show your overall evaluation linked to the question - Conclude, overall how convincing are the arguments in that extract then? Repeat for Extract B and C

Structure Extract A’s interpretation of…(the focus given in the question)… is … Extract A supports this interpretation by arguing ‘quote’. This is highly convincing as it can be supported by … (include historical context to support that view, try to be specific e.g. names/ dates/ events/ places)… (explain why this makes the argument convincing) Extract A also suggests that ‘quote’. However, this limits how convincing this interpretation is overall, as this point can be countered by… (historical context, explaining why this counters the argument)… Therefore on the whole Extract A is convincing regarding (point that you found convincing) because…(explain), despite making the point that (point that was not convincing) (explain why you still overall find it more convincing that not) Repeat for Extract B and C

Imagine the question was this: Using your understanding of the historical context, assess how convincing the arguments in these three extracts are in relation to…President Trump’s first 100 days in the White House

Extract A On Saturday Donald Trump will have been in the White House for a hundred days, and he has been a disaster for American democracy. His narcissism and incompetence has allowed little time for reflection and self-correction. His megalomania is such that he views himself as hounded by “enemies of the people”. In his contract with America, candidate Trump told voters that he would “restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities and honesty to our government”. These words, like much Mr Trump has said, have proved worthless. In terms of probity, there’s the matter of the FBI investigating whether and how the Trump campaign may have colluded with Moscow’s efforts to influence the presidential election. The ethics of the presidency are constantly called into question because Mr Trump, his family and his appointees insist upon maintaining their investments in various businesses, while at the same time conducting official US government policy.

Extract B The good news is that in its first 100 days, the administration reduced at least some of the uncertainty in East Asia about U.S. policy that Donald Trump himself created during the campaign. Even before January 20, his officials reaffirmed the centrality of alliances in our policy towards the region and informed Japan and South Korea that all the talk about allies paying their fair share for a U.S. security commitment didn’t apply to them. After generally demonizing China during the campaign, President Trump had a good meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, at least in terms of personal chemistry.

Extract C In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has falsely boasted of attracting the largest inaugural crowd ever, cited a nonexistent terrorist attack in Sweden and leveled an unproved accusation that his predecessor spied on him. While these inaccuracies have commanded much attention, there has been a steady stream of falsehoods. The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days (Saturday is Day 100). On five days, Mr. Trump went golfing, and on two he made limited public statements.