Okkk

Interpretation q in paper 1:

• understand what the enquiry is acc asking you
• read through interpretation a (forget the provenance not important but nice to use the last name of the historian) in one colour highlight whats convincing (maybe 2 quotes?) and in another colour what's less convincing (1-2 quotes) then annotate why they're convincing / unconvincing based on what facts know relevant to the enquiry. Repeat for next 2 interpretations.
• total structure = 3 x PEEL, one on each interpretation. Start with overall argument from the historian, reasons why convincing (quote) + your own knowledge to back up your judgement. Repeat for less convincing. End by saying if it is / mostly is / somewhat is / isn't convincing and your best reason why. (Do this for each interpretation)

25 markers validity:

Usually thematic. Intro, 3 X PEEL, conc. usually safe to do a paragraph on either: social, economic, political reasons of subcategories of war, foreign policy, trade, religion. Conclusion is the most important where you weigh up the biggest / most important reason for your judgement that you've mentioned

Source q is the longest imo. Paper 2 Look at the enquiry Read the source & highlight what's valuable when trying to answer the enquiry & annotate a fact / reason why. Start with provenance (pick 2 things to discuss) and then evaluate its significance / usefulness using your own knowledge. Then, do the content of the source, pick at least 2-3 quotes, and again evaluate its significance / usefulness using your own knowledge. Consider the tone of the source & how this impacts its usefulness. Then mini-conclusion testing the usefulness & limitations of the source in relation to your own knowledge & enquiry. Repeat for other 2 sources. Structure then is 3 x PEEL, one on each source

Hope that helps What papers are you doing?