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 what
understanding
of theand can
• Show
that you
understand
the Extract is arguing
write it in your own
words
interpretations
put
forward in all three extracts and
•combines
Show that you
pickaout
the sub-arguments
thiscan
with
strong
awarenessand
of provide
the historical
supporting
or points
to counter the interpretations
context
to points
analyse
and evaluate
• Show that you can, based on the analysis you’ve done, come to a
given
in
the
extracts.
Evaluation
of
the
arguments
will
judgement about how convincing the arguments therefore are
be
well-supported
and that
convincing.
• Show
that you can support
judgementThe
with response
specific and
demonstrates
a knowledge.
very good understanding of context.
detailed historical
25-30
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 subargument 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.