2025 OCR GCSE History A (Explaining the Modern World) - J410 模拟试题及答案详解

Points-based question: one generic mark and one specific mark for each valid feature, up to 5 marks. Likely features: (a) The Plan followed the crisis of 1923, when France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr after Germany missed a reparations payment and hyperinflation hit Germany. (b) A committee led by the American banker Charles Dawes reorganised payments: they started low and rose gradually as the German economy recovered, so Germany could meet them. (c) US banks lent Germany about 800 million gold marks, which restarted German industry and gave Germany money to pay reparations to Britain and France, who in turn used it to repay war debts to the USA. (d) France agreed to withdraw from the Ruhr (completed in 1925), removing a major source of anger and the risk of conflict. (e) The improved atmosphere under Stresemann made later agreements such as Locarno (1925) possible.

Levels of response, 5 marks.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Outlines two or more features of how the Plan eased tensions, with specific supporting detail. Award 5 if consistently meeting the criteria, 4 if just enough or slightly inconsistent.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Outlines one feature with specific detail, or identifies two features without supporting detail. Award 3 for one well-supported feature, 2 for the borderline.
Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion or description of the Plan with no link to easing tensions, e.g. 'It helped Germany pay'.
0: No relevant content.

Indicative content (e.g.): The Plan set reparations at an affordable annual level rising over time, so Germany could meet payments and France and Britain stopped demanding action [generic + specific]. American loans of about 800 million gold marks helped the German economy recover and funded reparations [generic + specific]. French and Belgian troops left the Ruhr by 1925, ending a Franco-German confrontation [generic + specific]. It created a more co-operative mood that led to Locarno in 1925.

Accept any other valid features; any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Do not credit the Young Plan (1929) unless clearly distinguished from the Dawes Plan. Answers that only describe the 1923 Ruhr occupation or hyperinflation without linking to the Dawes Plan should not go higher than Level 1. Answers that give a list of features with no explanation of how tensions were eased are capped at Level 2.

Nutshell: Affordable reparations, American loans and the French leaving the Ruhr reduced friction and helped co-operation.

Reason 1 - Dawes Plan (1924): In 1923 France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr when Germany defaulted on reparations. This caused hyperinflation in Germany and bitterness between France and Germany. The Dawes Plan, drawn up by an American-led committee, reorganised the payment schedule, reduced annual payments at first, and gave Germany US loans. German industry recovered, reparations were paid, French troops left the Ruhr, and the main source of tension was reduced. Prosperity made Germany more willing to co-operate.

Reason 2 - Locarno (1925): Gustav Stresemann, the German foreign minister, agreed with Britain, France, Italy and Belgium that Germany would accept its western borders with France and Belgium, and the demilitarised Rhineland, with Britain and Italy acting as guarantors. This eased French fears of invasion and was called the 'spirit of Locarno'. It led to Germany joining the League of Nations in 1926 with a permanent Council seat, which brought Germany back into the community of nations.

Further reasons that may be credited: Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928, in which 60+ states renounced war as a tool of policy; the Young Plan 1929 reducing the reparations total and lengthening the period of payment; Stresemann's and Briand's personal diplomacy; the general economic recovery of the mid-1920s.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 5 marks; AO2 (explanation and analysis of cause) 5 marks. Levels of response.

Level 5 (9-10): Explains two or more reasons, each developed with accurate, relevant knowledge and a clear link to improved relations. 10 = consistently meets the criteria; 9 = just enough or slightly inconsistent.
Level 4 (7-8): Explains one reason in a developed way, with accurate knowledge and a clear link to improved relations, and may identify or describe a second. 8 = consistent; 7 = borderline.
Level 3 (5-6): Describes two or more reasons with some accurate knowledge but the explanation of how they improved relations is undeveloped.
Level 2 (3-4): Describes events of the 1920s or identifies reasons without explaining them. Responses that do not go beyond the stimulus points should not go higher than Level 3.
Level 1 (1-2): General assertion with little or no relevant knowledge, e.g. 'countries wanted peace after the war'.
0: No relevant content.

Indicative content (e.g.):
Dawes Plan: After the 1923 Ruhr occupation and hyperinflation, the Dawes Plan 1924 rescheduled reparations and brought American loans into Germany. The economy recovered, France withdrew from the Ruhr, and the dispute that had poisoned relations eased. Nutshell: economic issues removed a key source of conflict.
Locarno: In 1925 Germany accepted its western frontiers and the demilitarised Rhineland, guaranteed by Britain and Italy. This reassured France, led to Germany joining the League in 1926, and created the 'spirit of Locarno'. Nutshell: security fears reduced and Germany re-admitted to international affairs.

Candidates may also link the following reasons: the role of Stresemann, Briand and Chamberlain; the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928; the Young Plan 1929; economic prosperity in Europe and the USA's financial involvement. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Accept any valid features.
Candidates who argue that improvements were fragile may be credited if linked to the question.

Model approach: (1) Identify A's view: the USSR was chiefly to blame; the West only reacted. (2) Test it with knowledge. Support: Soviet-backed Communist takeovers in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, the rigged 1947 Polish election, the 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia, Churchill-style 'Iron Curtain' division of Europe, and Cominform. Truman Doctrine (1947) and Marshall Plan were presented as responses to this. (3) Use B: the USA had the atomic bomb and economic strength; Marshall Aid (1947) bound Western Europe to American trade, and Stalin saw it as dollar imperialism, refusing it for Eastern Europe and creating Comecon. Soviet losses in the war explain its desire for a buffer zone. This challenges A's claim that Soviet actions alone forced the West to resist. (4) Use C: post-1991 evidence suggests caution and misunderstanding on both sides. Link to Yalta and Potsdam disagreements over Poland, reparations and Germany; the merging of the western zones and new currency in 1948 led to the Berlin Blockade; the Airlift followed. (5) Consider provenance: A was written in 1958 at the height of the Cold War, in a Western textbook, so it may reflect the Western view; B was written during the Vietnam War, when American motives were questioned; C used newly opened archives. (6) Reach a supported judgement: A is fair on Soviet behaviour in Eastern Europe but not a complete account, as it ignores Western actions and mutual suspicion.

AO4 (20 marks) and AO1 (5 marks). Mark holistically using levels. No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation; knowledge must be used to evaluate the interpretation.

Level 5 (21-25): Evaluates A fully using B and C and own knowledge, with developed reasons both for and against its fairness, supported by accurate and specific knowledge, and reaches a sustained, supported judgement. May consider how provenance (date, author, context) shapes the view.
Level 4 (16-20): Evaluates A using B, C and knowledge with developed reasoning, but either the balance is uneven or the judgement is only partly supported.
Level 3 (11-15): Identifies and explains some ways A agrees or disagrees with B and C, or tests A with knowledge, but the points are undeveloped or only one side is considered. Should not go higher than Level 3 if only one interpretation is used with knowledge.
Level 2 (6-10): Describes the interpretations or describes events of 1945-1949 with limited link to the question. Should not go higher than Level 2 if understanding of the interpretation is limited.
Level 1 (1-5): General assertions or paraphrase of the extracts, with little or no relevant knowledge.
Within a level, choose the mark by whether the response is on the borderline, just enough, slightly inconsistent or consistently meeting the descriptor.

Indicative content, e.g.: 'Interpretation A is fair because the USSR installed Communist governments in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and backed the 1948 Czech coup, which pushed the USA to announce the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. However, Interpretation B suggests Marshall Aid was designed to open European markets for the USA, so Stalin saw it as a threat; this shows A ignores US motives. Interpretation C says both sides mistrusted each other, which fits the disputes at Potsdam and the creation of Bizonia that led to the Berlin Blockade...' Accept any valid features, e.g. Yalta and Potsdam, Cominform, Comecon, NATO, Soviet security fears, atomic monopoly, provenance points. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited.

Nutshell: Does the candidate use B, C and knowledge to judge how far A fairly explains responsibility for tension, and reach a supported conclusion?

A strong answer explains the difference between A and B in terms of why historians differ, and uses C and own knowledge to support the explanation.

Points a candidate might develop:
1. Timing and context. A was written in 1948, soon after a war in which Britain suffered heavily. The mood was one of blame, and Appeasement was seen as a failure that had led directly to 1939. B was written in 1972, once the war was no longer so raw, and after official papers were released under the thirty-year rule, so the author could see the pressures ministers faced.
2. Evidence selected. A selects the Rhineland (1936), Austria (1938) and the Munich Agreement/Czechoslovakia (1938-39) as evidence of repeated surrender and Hitler growing bolder. B selects the Depression, imperial commitments, Dominion reluctance and the need for rearmament time, including the Chiefs of Staff warnings of 1937-38 and the lead taken by Chamberlain in negotiating at Munich.
3. Different questions and priorities. A asks whether the outcome could have been prevented and judges ministers by what happened. B asks what options were available at the time and judges by constraints. A emphasises ministers' beliefs and character; B emphasises structural limits.
4. Use of C. C shows that views developed further. By 2015 historians stress the sympathy for revising Versailles, the memory of the First World War, public opinion and the democratic pressures on leaders, and treat Appeasement as changing over time (for example Locarno-era conciliation, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935, then Munich 1938). It supports B in treating leaders as responding to reasonable pressures but widens the explanation. Post-1990 access to more archives and wider interests in public attitudes explain this.
5. Knowledge to support: the Rhineland remilitarisation 1936, the Anschluss 1938, Munich 1938, the March 1939 occupation of Prague, the guarantee to Poland, the Cold War and later debates (not needed for 1948 and 1972 but may be mentioned for the later shift).

SPaG (5 marks): threshold marking on spelling, punctuation, grammar and use of specialist terms such as Appeasement, rearmament, Versailles, interpretation, Dominions.

Total 25 marks: 20 content marks (AO4 interpretation, mainly 15, with AO1 knowledge, mainly 5, assessed together using the levels below) plus 5 SPaG marks.

Level 5 (17-20 marks): Explains two or more developed reasons why A and B differ (e.g. context/timing and evidence or focus), supported by accurate and detailed knowledge, with use of Interpretation C to extend or support the explanation. Shows clear understanding that interpretations are constructions shaped by purpose, time and evidence.
Level 4 (13-16 marks): Explains one developed reason why the interpretations differ, supported by relevant knowledge and some reference to C or the other interpretation.
Level 3 (9-12 marks): Identifies reasons for the difference (e.g. A is critical, B is supportive; written at different times) but these are described rather than developed. Knowledge may be accurate but is not linked to the difference.
Level 2 (5-8 marks): Describes the content of the interpretations or Appeasement events without explaining why they differ; or identifies differences without explanation.
Level 1 (1-4 marks): General assertion, for example 'they have different opinions', with little or no valid reference to the interpretations.
0: No creditworthy response.

Within a level, choose the mark by whether the response is on the borderline, just meets, is slightly inconsistent against, or consistently meets the descriptor.

Caps: a response that only compares A and B with no explanation of why they differ should not go higher than Level 2. A response that uses only knowledge in isolation, with no link to the interpretations, should not go higher than Level 2. A response with no use of C or the other interpretations should not go higher than Level 4.

Indicative content (e.g.):
- 'Interpretation A was written in 1948, only three years after the war ended. At this time many people blamed the politicians of the 1930s for failing to stop Hitler, so the author stresses weakness and surrender at the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. Interpretation B was written in 1972, when government papers had been released, so the author could see the Depression and military weakness that limited ministers. This is why one condemns and the other defends.'
- 'The authors also choose different evidence. A uses the pattern of concessions, while B uses the need to gain time to rearm and the reluctance of the Dominions. Interpretation C adds public opinion and feelings about Versailles, showing that later historians widened the question beyond the leaders.'
- Nutshell: reasons for difference are context and date of writing, evidence selected, and the questions or priorities of each historian.
- Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Candidates may also link the following reasons: availability of sources, the influence of the Cold War, the purpose of the book (textbook v academic study).
- No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation.

SPaG (5 marks): High performance 4-5 marks: spelling and punctuation consistently accurate, grammar controlled, wide range of specialist terms used appropriately. Intermediate 2-3 marks: spelling and punctuation mostly accurate, some control of grammar, adequate range of specialist terms. Threshold 1 mark: basic accuracy, meaning clear most of the time, limited specialist terms. 0 marks: errors prevent meaning or no response.

The Black Consciousness Movement grew among Black university students in the late 1960s and 1970s. A key feature was its message of psychological liberation: Black people were urged to take pride in being Black and to stop accepting the idea that they were inferior to white people. The movement was organised by students through SASO (South African Students' Organisation) and also set up community projects such as health clinics and literacy programmes. It stressed that Black people should lead their own struggle rather than rely on white liberals. Its ideas influenced the young people who took part in the 1976 Soweto uprising.

2 marks: one generic mark for identifying a valid feature [1]; one specific mark for supporting detail that develops or is specific to the feature [1].

Indicative content, e.g.: 'The movement promoted Black pride and self-reliance [1]. Its leaders, such as Steve Biko, urged Black people to reject the belief that they were inferior and to lead their own liberation without white liberals [1].'

Other valid features to credit: led mainly by students and based in SASO (founded 1968); community projects such as clinics and literacy classes; a non-violent, ideas-based approach focused on changing attitudes; influence on the young people of the 1976 Soweto uprising; banning of leaders and organisations by the regime in the 1970s; Biko's death in police custody in 1977.

Award 1 mark for a simple identification or assertion with no support (e.g. 'It was about Black pride'). Award 2 marks where the feature is supported by accurate specific detail. Do not award a second mark for a second, separate feature that is only stated. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited.

Nutshell: one identified feature [1] plus specific supporting detail [1].

A strong answer explains at least two causes, linking each to the growth of Black Consciousness.

Reason 1 - Leadership vacuum. After Sharpeville (1960) and the Rivonia Trial (1964) the ANC and PAC were banned and their leaders jailed or exiled, so open political opposition inside South Africa was weak and fearful. Young Black students at segregated universities formed SASO in 1968, led by Steve Biko, after breaking away from the white-led NUSAS. SASO offered a new, non-violent, self-reliant approach that the regime found harder to ban at first because it appeared to fit with separate development.

Reason 2 - Ideas of pride and self-worth. Black Consciousness argued that Black people had been made to feel inferior by apartheid and had to free their minds first ('Black is beautiful'). This appealed to young people who experienced pass laws, inferior schooling and poor job prospects. Community projects, clinics and newspapers spread the ideas beyond the universities.

Reason 3 - Education grievances and Soweto. Bantu Education gave Black children overcrowded schools and poor teaching. The 1974 order that Afrikaans be used for some subjects angered pupils, and the South African Students' Movement spread Black Consciousness ideas in schools. The police shooting of schoolchildren on 16 June 1976 in Soweto turned anger into mass protest and thousands joined or sympathised with the movement; many young people left to join the ANC in exile.

Other valid factors: economic growth and the Durban strikes of 1973 showing that protest could work; the success of liberation movements in Mozambique and Angola in 1974-75; the regime's repression (Biko's banning in 1973).

AO1 (5 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5 marks) causation analysis. Mark holistically using levels.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains two or more reasons, each developed with accurate and specific knowledge and clearly linked to why Black Consciousness grew in popularity. Reasoning is sustained. 10 = consistently meets the criteria; 9 = just enough or slightly inconsistent.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains one reason in a developed way, with specific knowledge, and may identify or describe a second. 8 = consistent; 7 = borderline/just enough.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Describes reasons with some accurate knowledge but they are not developed or explicitly linked to the growth of the movement. 6 = two or more described reasons; 5 = borderline.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes events or identifies reasons without explaining them (e.g. describes Soweto without linking it to the question). Capped at this level if only description is given.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little relevant knowledge, e.g. 'Black people disliked apartheid'.
0: no creditable response.

Indicative content (e.g.):
- Leadership vacuum: ANC/PAC banned after Sharpeville; Rivonia Trial 1964; Mandela and Sisulu imprisoned; SASO formed 1968 under Steve Biko, rejecting white-led NUSAS; message of Black pride and self-reliance, non-violence, community programmes.
- Education and youth grievances: Bantu Education, overcrowded schools, 1974 Afrikaans Medium Decree, South African Students' Movement, Soweto uprising 16 June 1976 (Hector Pieterson), police violence radicalising youth and boosting support.
- Economic and regional factors: 1973 Durban strikes; independence of Mozambique and Angola 1974-75 raising confidence; banning of Biko 1973 enhancing his status.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Candidates may also link reasons to one another. No marks for knowledge in isolation: it must be used to explain why support grew. Do not credit events after 1977 (e.g. Biko's death in 1977) as a cause of growth to 1976, though they may support a point about longer-term impact.

Nutshell: Level 5 is two developed reasons; Level 4 one developed reason; Level 3 described but undeveloped reasons; Level 2 description/identification; Level 1 general assertion.

Content: the speaker attacks Bantu Education ('prepare us to be servants'), which links to the apartheid government's policy of separate and inferior schooling for Black children. The order to teach in Afrikaans was a direct trigger for the Soweto protests, so the source shows a specific cause of resistance. The pledge to march 'carrying no weapons' reflects the planned non-violent character of the 16 June 1976 demonstration, which the police met with live fire. The claim that parents are 'watching... and proud' hints at wider community support, and fits the growth of trade union activity after the 1973 Durban strikes. Context and nature: the speech echoes the ideas of the Black Consciousness Movement and SASO, which encouraged young Black people to take pride and act for themselves. Its purpose is to motivate and persuade, so it is one-sided and may exaggerate adult support, but this still shows the mood that student organisers wanted to build. As a spoken extract written close to the events, it reveals attitudes at the time, though it cannot show the regime's response or the scale of the later uprising.

AO3 (5 marks). Levels of response. No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation: knowledge must be used to evaluate the source's usefulness.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Explains usefulness with reference to both the content and the nature/origin/purpose of the source, supported by contextual knowledge. 5 marks if consistently developed; 4 marks if one strand is slightly less developed.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Explains usefulness through content OR provenance, with some contextual knowledge but limited development. 3 marks if well supported; 2 marks if just enough.
Level 1 (1 mark): General assertion of usefulness or identification of details from the source without explanation or context. Generic comments such as 'it is a speech so it is biased' stay in Level 1.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content, e.g.: (1) Content: the source shows opposition to Bantu Education and the Afrikaans instruction rule, which was the immediate trigger of the Soweto uprising; the peaceful intent ('no weapons') matches the planned march of 16 June 1976; parental support links to the growth of unions and the 1973 Durban strikes. (2) Nature and purpose: a persuasive spoken address by a student leader, reflecting Black Consciousness ideas of pride and self-reliance; useful for showing the mood and tactics of organisers, but one-sided and may overstate adult support; it says nothing about the regime's violent response. Nutshell: Level 3 uses what the source says and what it is/why it was given, with context, to judge usefulness.

Accept any other valid features, e.g. the speaker's rejection of the regime's view of Black people, or the role of young people in resistance. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Responses that only evaluate with no use of the content should not go higher than Level 2.

Approach: identify what the cartoon shows, link its details to the 1985-86 context, then state an overall message.

1. The man on the tower claims 'The tower has never been stronger' while waving the State of Emergency flag. The cartoonist suggests the government is putting on a show of confidence and relying on force (the State of Emergency declared in 1985) rather than addressing the problem.
2. The bricks are the things apartheid needed to survive: loans, investment, markets and goodwill. The many small hands removing them show that international sanctions, disinvestment and boycotts, backed by the Anti-Apartheid Movement, were wearing down South Africa's economy bit by bit.
3. The leaning tower and cracks show that the regime was becoming unstable and that its claims were false.
4. The watching township crowd suggests internal resistance (UDF-led mass protest) was adding to the pressure, so economic and domestic pressure were working together.
5. The caption's question mark ('Business as usual?') casts doubt on the government's claim that nothing had changed.

Overall message: the apartheid government was bluffing; outside pressure was undermining it and its collapse was a real possibility.

AO3 (5 marks). Levels of response. No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation: knowledge must be used to interpret the source.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Identifies and explains the message of the cartoon as a whole, supported by detail from the cartoon AND own knowledge of context (e.g. sanctions, 1985 State of Emergency, UDF/township resistance, Anti-Apartheid Movement). 5 marks if consistently meets the criteria and the message is clearly developed (e.g. government's confidence is false; outside pressure is eroding its economic base); 4 marks if just enough or slightly inconsistent.

Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies a message with support from the cartoon details OR from knowledge, but the two are not combined, or the message is only partly developed (e.g. 'sanctions are hurting South Africa because bricks are being removed'). 3 marks if consistently meeting the level; 2 marks if borderline.

Level 1 (1 mark): Describes the cartoon or gives a general or undeveloped comment (e.g. 'the man is on a tower'; 'the cartoonist doesn't like apartheid'). Capped at this level if there is no valid message.

0 marks: no relevant content.

Indicative content, e.g.: 'The cartoonist is showing that the government's boast of strength is empty. The tower is made of loans, investment and markets, and sanctions campaigners are pulling these out, which links to the international pressure of the mid-1980s. The State of Emergency flag shows the government relying on force, but the leaning tower and the crowd of protesters suggest its position was weakening.' Nutshell: Apartheid regime is bluffing; sanctions and protest are undermining it.

Any other historically valid message supported by the cartoon and context is acceptable and should be credited, e.g. that repression cannot protect the economy, or that sanctions work gradually rather than at once.

Suggested approach.

For the statement (Soweto): The protest against Afrikaans as a language of instruction began on 16 June 1976. Police opened fire on schoolchildren, and the uprising spread to townships across the country and lasted months. Hundreds died, and the images shocked world opinion and damaged the regime's image. It led thousands of young people to flee abroad and join the ANC in exile and Umkhonto we Sizwe. It showed that repression had not ended resistance after Sharpeville and Rivonia, and it increased international condemnation.

Against the statement (other factors): (1) Black Consciousness and SASO, associated with Steve Biko, built pride and confidence among young Black South Africans before 1976 and inspired the student leaders. Without it Soweto may not have happened, so it is arguably more fundamental. (2) The 1973 Durban strikes showed that Black workers could use economic power. They led to the growth of Black trade unions and put pressure on employers and the economy. (3) Women's groups and community organisations challenged pass laws and the regime in daily life. (4) The ANC in exile and the international Anti-Apartheid Movement kept up diplomatic and public pressure, and the regime's heavy response (banning orders, Biko's death in 1977) increased criticism.

Judgement: Soweto was a turning point because it made pressure on the regime visible, national and international. However, it grew out of earlier developments such as Black Consciousness and the Durban strikes, and its long-term impact depended on the ANC in exile and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. A reasoned conclusion could be that Soweto was the most important trigger but not the sole or deepest cause. Any well-supported judgement is acceptable.

18 marks: AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 7 marks; AO2 (explanation and analysis using the concepts of cause and significance) 11 marks. Quality of extended response is assessed.

Level 5 (15-18 marks): Sustained, balanced analysis of Soweto and at least two other factors, with developed, accurate and specific knowledge. Reaches a clear, supported judgement on 'most important', with comparison between factors. Consistently meets the criteria = 17-18; just enough = 15-16.

Level 4 (11-14 marks): Developed explanation of Soweto and at least one other factor, with relevant knowledge. Judgement is present but comparison is limited or not fully supported.

Level 3 (7-10 marks): Describes several reasons, such as Soweto, Biko or the Durban strikes, with some accurate knowledge but little development or link to the question. Judgement is asserted or implied. Should not go higher than Level 3 if only one side is addressed.

Level 2 (3-6 marks): Description of events with limited relevance, or unexplained identification of factors. No real judgement.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little or no accurate knowledge.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Within a level, choose the mark by whether the response is on the borderline, just enough, slightly inconsistent or consistently meeting the criteria.

Indicative content, e.g.: Soweto: 16 June 1976 protest over Afrikaans in schools; police shootings; spread to townships; international shock; youth exile and recruitment to MK; end of the belief that repression had silenced opposition. Other factors: Black Consciousness and SASO (Biko) shaping a new generation; the 1973 Durban strikes and the growth of trade unions; women's groups; the ANC in exile; the Anti-Apartheid Movement and international pressure; the regime's harsh response, including Biko's death in 1977. Candidates may also link these factors to show that Soweto was the result of earlier developments.

Nutshell: the best answers weigh Soweto against other causes of pressure and reach a justified judgement.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Accept any valid features.

Two separate examples are needed. Each earns one mark for a valid identification (generic) and one mark for supporting detail (specific).

Example 1: After 1066 William I encouraged Jews from Normandy to settle in England. They were seen as under the king's protection and, because Christians were forbidden by the Church from lending money at interest, they filled a gap by acting as moneylenders to the Crown, nobles and the Church.

Example 2: Kings used Jewish communities as a source of income. Heavy taxes known as tallages were demanded, and the Crown could take over the debts owed to a Jewish lender when he died. This made Jewish people vulnerable when kings needed money.

Example 3: In 1290 Edward I expelled the Jews from England. Having already restricted their moneylending, he gained the support of Parliament for a tax in return. Roughly 2,000 people had to leave, and they were not officially allowed back until the 1650s.

Award up to 2 marks for each example, to a maximum of 4 marks.

For each example: 1 mark for identifying a valid way the Crown's actions affected Jewish communities (generic); a second mark for supporting detail that is accurate and specific, such as names, dates, numbers or consequences.

Indicative content, e.g.: William I invited Jews from Normandy to settle and gave them royal protection; kings imposed heavy taxes (tallages) on Jewish communities; the Crown took over the debts of deceased Jewish moneylenders; the Crown allowed moneylending to be controlled through royal records and chests (archae); Jews were required to live under royal jurisdiction rather than that of local lords; Edward I's Statute of the Jewry 1275 banned moneylending at interest; Edward I's 1290 expulsion of the Jews.

Accept any other historically valid content and credit it.

Do not award a second mark for detail if the identification is wrong or not about Crown action. Two examples that are the same point in different words count as one example. Do not credit actions by the Church or the public unless clearly linked to royal action. Maximum 4 marks.

Nutshell: two valid, supported examples = 4 marks.

Reason 1 - Moneylending and royal protection: Jews arrived with William I after 1066 under the king's protection. Christians were forbidden by the Church to lend at interest, and Jews were barred from most trades and from guilds, so many became moneylenders. This was useful to the king, who taxed them heavily and could cancel or seize debts, but it made them resented by those in debt, including nobles and knights. Hostility grew as the Crown's protection weakened and its demands rose; Edward I banned usury in 1275, removing their economic role, and the 1290 expulsion followed.

Reason 2 - Religious prejudice: Medieval Christians were taught to blame Jews for the death of Christ. Accusations of ritual murder (blood libel), beginning with William of Norwich in 1144, spread fear. During the preparations for the Third Crusade, violence broke out, notably the 1190 massacre at Clifford's Tower, York, where the debt records were also destroyed. The Church imposed restrictions, such as the badge required after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the 1253 Statute of Jewry, increasing separation and suspicion.

Other valid reasons: the Crusades creating religious fervour, their separate living areas (Jewries) making them seem 'outsiders', kings' financial exploitation, Edward I's need for support from Parliament.

AO1 (4 marks) knowledge and AO2 (4 marks) analysis of cause. Total 8.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains two reasons, both developed with accurate, relevant knowledge and a clear causal link to growing hostility. 8 = consistently meets the criteria; 7 = just enough or slightly inconsistent.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Explains one reason in a developed way, and identifies or describes a second without development. 6 = consistent; 5 = borderline.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes events or identifies reasons, with some relevant knowledge but no explanation of why hostility grew. 4 = consistent; 3 = borderline. Capped at this level if understanding is limited to narrative of events (e.g. an account of the 1290 expulsion only).
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little or no relevant knowledge, e.g. 'people did not like Jews'.
0 marks: No relevant content.

Indicative content (e.g.):
- Moneylending: Church ban on usury and exclusion from guilds meant many Jews lent money; debtors, including barons, resented repayment; the Crown taxed Jews heavily and could seize debts, so Jews were seen as the king's agents; Edward I's 1275 ban on usury ended their economic usefulness.
- Religious prejudice: blame for the death of Christ; blood libel from William of Norwich (1144); Crusader violence and the 1190 York massacre; 1215 badge and later restrictions.
- Accept any valid features, e.g. separation into Jewries, royal exploitation, Edward I's need for money and support. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Candidates may also link the stimulus points to the reasons above.

The stimulus bullets are optional prompts; candidates need not use them. Marks are not awarded for knowledge in isolation: it must be used to explain why hostility grew.

Nutshell: Level 4 is two developed reasons; Level 3 is one developed reason; Level 2 is description or unexplained identification; Level 1 is general assertion.

Significance means how much difference an event made, how long its effects lasted and how many people it affected.

Arguments for significance: (1) Before 1066 Britain was already diverse (Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norse and other settlers), but the Conquest replaced the English ruling class with Norman French landowners, bishops and abbots, so a small but powerful group of migrants controlled land, language and law. (2) William I encouraged Jewish moneylenders from Rouen and Normandy to settle, because the Crown could tax them and they could provide credit. This created the first organised Jewish communities in towns such as London, Lincoln and York. Their experience was shaped by royal protection, which also made them dependent on the king and vulnerable when it was withdrawn (for example violence in 1190 and the 1290 expulsion). (3) Norman rule brought lasting change: French became the language of government and the elite, and the Crown controlled who could settle.

Arguments against or limiting significance: (1) The number of Norman settlers was small compared with the total population; most people experienced little direct change. (2) Britain had seen migration before 1066, so the Conquest was a continuation as well as a change. (3) Later developments mattered as much: trade with Flemish weavers, Italian and Hanseatic merchants who settled in towns like London and Southampton, and the 1290 expulsion changed experiences more directly for many groups. Alien residents faced taxes, restrictions and suspicion in the later medieval period, e.g. alien subsidies and guild limits, which were not caused by the Conquest alone.

A top answer reaches a supported judgement, for example that the Conquest was most significant for who held power and for beginning Jewish settlement, but less significant for ordinary migrants whose experiences were shaped by trade and by royal policy over the following centuries.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 4 marks, AO2 (analysis of significance) 10 marks. Total 14. Levels of response; the answer is assessed holistically.

Level 5 (12-14 marks): Sustained, well-developed analysis of the significance of the Conquest, considering at least two factors (for example its impact, its lasting effects, how many people it affected, or how it compares with other developments) and reaching a fully supported judgement. Accurate and detailed knowledge is used throughout. 14 = consistently meets the criteria; 13 = just enough or slightly inconsistent; 12 = borderline.

Level 4 (9-11 marks): Developed explanation of the significance of the Conquest, with at least one developed point of analysis and some attempt at a judgement, but the judgement may be less well supported or the analysis may be one-sided. Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Describes ways the Conquest affected migrants, with some explanation of significance, but the points are undeveloped or lack a judgement. Knowledge is sound but not always linked to the question.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Description of events or unexplained identification of changes (for example 'the Normans took over England'), with limited or no link to significance. Should not go higher than Level 2 if no migrant experiences are addressed.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little relevant knowledge.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Significance answers that discuss only the Conquest without any comparison, change or continuity, or time period, should not go higher than Level 3. Responses that do not address the period c.1000-c.1500 are capped at Level 3.

Indicative content (e.g.):
- The Conquest created a new ruling elite of Norman landowners and churchmen; language, law and land ownership changed, though the number of settlers was small.
- William I encouraged Jews from Normandy to settle; they provided loans for the Crown and lived under royal protection, which later turned to danger (1190 violence, 1290 expulsion).
- Pre-1066 diversity (Angles, Saxons, Danes, Norse) shows continuity, which limits the Conquest's significance.
- Flemish, Italian and German merchants and craftsmen settled for trade, and alien residents faced taxes and restrictions in medieval towns, which were shaped by the Crown and trade as much as by the Conquest.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Candidates are not required to use the stimulus points.

Nutshell: the best answers weigh the Conquest as a turning point for power and for Jewish settlement against continuity in migration and later developments, and reach a supported judgement about its significance.

Plan: (1) Argue for 1066 as a turning point: a Norman-French elite replaced the Anglo-Saxon ruling class; land, Church and government were transferred to incomers; French became the language of power; William I brought Jewish communities from Normandy, who lent money under royal protection; castles and settlement of Normans changed local life. (2) Argue against / for other turning points: Jewish experience changed more dramatically later - the 1144 Norwich blood libel accusation, the 1190 York massacre, 1215 Lateran Council badges/restrictions, heavy taxation by kings, and the 1290 expulsion by Edward I; for 'alien' residents (Flemish weavers, Italian and Hanseatic merchants, Welsh and Scots in towns) experience depended on trade, royal licence and local resentment more than on 1066, e.g. later taxes on aliens and restrictions in the fourteenth century. (3) Continuity: Britain was already diverse before 1066 (Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danish rule under Cnut 1016-1035), so 1066 was one more conquest; immigrants remained dependent on rulers' protection; hostility and tolerance coexisted throughout. (4) Judgement: e.g. 1066 was most important for the origins of a new Norman ruling elite and for Jewish arrival, but for the experience of immigrants as a whole the 1290 expulsion and the changes of c.1170-1290 were at least as significant; 1066 mainly changed who held power rather than how most immigrants lived. Credit a sustained criterion (e.g. scale, depth of impact on lives, long-term legacy) used to reach the judgement.

24 marks: AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 8 marks; AO2 (analysis using the second-order concepts of change, continuity and significance) 16 marks. Assessed as an extended response (*) and holistically.

Level 5 (21-24 marks): Sustained, balanced, fully supported judgement. Considers the statement and at least one alternative turning point or continuity, using precise, accurate knowledge across the period c.1000-c.1500. Explicit criteria for 'most important' are applied and a reasoned overall conclusion is reached.
Level 4 (16-20 marks): Developed analysis with a supported judgement. Explains both the given factor and alternatives with mostly accurate detail; the judgement is clear but may be less well sustained or criteria less explicit.
Level 3 (11-15 marks): Some analysis with partial judgement. Describes the Conquest and at least one other factor, with some explanation of change/continuity but limited development or weak evaluation.
Level 2 (6-10 marks): Descriptive. Narrates events or identifies factors without explaining turning points; the judgement is asserted or implicit. Should not go higher than Level 2 if no attempt is made to address 'most important'.
Level 1 (1-5 marks): General assertion. Vague or generalised comments, little relevant knowledge.
Level 0: no creditworthy response.

Marks within a level: choose the upper mark where the response consistently meets the descriptor, the middle where it is mostly secure, and the lowest where it is on the borderline or slightly inconsistent. Responses covering only the Norman Conquest with no other period or factor should not go higher than Level 3. Responses without reference to any period outside 1000-1500 are not penalised.

Indicative content (e.g.): 1066 - Norman elite replaced Anglo-Saxon nobility; Jewish migration from Normandy under royal protection; French language and castles; Domesday survey recording settlers. Against - pre-1066 diversity (Vikings, Cnut); 1144 Norwich accusation; 1190 York massacre; 1215 restrictions and badges; heavy royal taxation of Jews; 1290 expulsion; medieval 'alien' merchants and craftsmen (Flemish weavers, Italian and Hanseatic merchants); taxes and restrictions on aliens in the later Middle Ages; continuity of reliance on royal permission and recurring local hostility. Nutshell: a top answer weighs the Conquest against later changes and the continuities, and justifies which mattered most.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Candidates may also link the following: the role of the Church, the monarchy's financial needs, and the differing experiences of elites, merchants and Jewish communities.

Plan: choose two causes and develop each by linking knowledge to the question of why the damage was widespread.

Reason 1 - Speculation and over-valuation: After the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht the South Sea Company gained the asiento, the right to supply enslaved Africans to Spanish America, but the trade was small and restricted. The Company nevertheless advertised huge future profits. Share prices rose from about £128 in January 1720 to about £1,000 by the summer. People of many ranks, including merchants, clergy and women, bought shares, some borrowing to do so. When insiders began to sell and confidence slipped, prices fell sharply and those who had bought at the peak lost their savings. This is why the damage reached so many households.

Reason 2 - Links to government finance and the elite: The Company offered to take over a large part of the national debt, swapping government annuities for shares. Politicians, courtiers and financiers had a stake in its success, and bribery of officials helped Parliament approve the scheme. When it collapsed, banks and goldsmiths that had lent money against shares were put under pressure, trust in government finance was shaken, and the political scandal led to inquiries and the rise of Robert Walpole. The impact therefore spread through the whole economy and politics, not just among speculators.

Other valid points: little regulation of joint-stock companies (the Bubble Act of 1720 itself came too late), rumour and excitement in the coffee houses and in London's Exchange Alley, and competition from other bubble companies.

AO1 (5 marks, knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (5 marks, causation analysis). Marked using levels, holistically.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains two or more reasons, each developed with accurate, specific knowledge and clearly linked to why the damage was widespread. Consistently meets the criteria = 10; just enough or slightly inconsistent = 9.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains one reason fully developed with specific knowledge; may identify a second reason without full development. 8 = consistent; 7 = borderline or slightly inconsistent.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Describes one or more reasons with some accurate knowledge but without explaining the link to the question. 6 = consistent; 5 = borderline.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes events of the South Sea Bubble or identifies reasons without explanation. 4 = consistent; 3 = borderline.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion with little or no relevant knowledge, e.g. 'People lost money because the company failed.'
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.
Caps: a response that gives a narrative of events with no causes cannot go above Level 2; a single developed reason cannot go above Level 4.

Indicative content (e.g.): Speculation and share-price inflation after Utrecht and the asiento; ordinary investors buying on credit; takeover of the national debt by the Company; involvement and bribery of ministers and the elite; strain on banks and public credit; lack of regulation; rumour and coffee-house excitement; Walpole's rise after the crisis. Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited.

Nutshell: Level 5 is two developed reasons explaining why the damage was so widespread; Level 4 is one developed reason.

Model approach (not a full essay).

Source A: supports the statement. A Bristol merchant says three voyages doubled his capital; the triangular trade (cloth and iron to Africa, enslaved people to the Caribbean, sugar home) made ports like Bristol, Liverpool and London rich. Caution: one merchant, writing privately to a relative, may exaggerate; the provenance shows he has a personal interest in the trade. Knowledge: the Royal African Company's monopoly ended in 1698, opening the trade to many private merchants and sharply increasing the number of voyages; sugar and tobacco re-exports, plantation economies and consumer demand (sugar, tea, coffee) all grew.

Source B: challenges the statement. A financier argues that cheap credit from the Bank of England (founded 1694) let merchants raise funds quickly and steadied the Crown's debts, so credit mattered as much as cargo. Caution: the author is promoting the Bank, so is biased towards finance. Knowledge: the Bank funded war with France; the East India Company traded textiles, tea and spices with India and China (including through Kolkata/Calcutta); the 1719 South Sea Bubble shows both the lure and the dangers of finance linked to trade with the Americas, itself connected to the slave trade (the South Sea Company held the asiento contract after the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht).

Source C: challenges the statement, and shows the importance of political protection. The Scottish Darien Scheme failed because of disease, lack of English support and rivalry; English merchants, backed by the Navigation system and naval power, gained the best markets. This led to the 1707 Act of Union, which opened English colonial markets to Scots. Caution: the writer is a bitter investor blaming others, and Darien was a failure of one venture, not evidence about all merchants.

Judgement: the slave-based economy was a central reason (and many other sources of wealth were themselves tied to it), but finance, chartered-company trade with Asia and state backing for English merchants were also vital. A convincing conclusion weighs these and reaches a supported verdict, e.g. 'main reason' is partly justified but overstated.

SPaG (5 marks): assessed on accuracy of spelling, punctuation and grammar, clarity of meaning, and use of specialist terms such as monopoly, triangular trade, credit, chartered company, Navigation Acts, asiento.

Total 25 marks: AO1 5, AO2 5, AO3 10 (source evaluation), SPaG 5. Mark holistically using levels for the 20 content marks. No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation: knowledge must be used to interpret or test the sources.

Level 5 (17-20): Sustained, balanced evaluation. Uses all three sources, considering both how far they support and how far they challenge the statement, with developed comment on provenance (author, purpose, date) and accurate, relevant own knowledge. Reaches a supported overall judgement that weighs the slave-based economy against other factors.

Level 4 (13-16): Developed evaluation of at least two sources, with some use of own knowledge and some comment on reliability or usefulness. Judgement is reasoned but may be one-sided or not fully weighed.

Level 3 (9-12): Uses sources for support/challenge with some comment, OR evaluates only one or two sources. Own knowledge is accurate but may be descriptive or only loosely linked to the sources. Judgement is simple.

Level 2 (5-8): Describes or paraphrases the sources, with generic or undeveloped knowledge. Little or no evaluation; any conclusion is assertion. Cap at Level 2 if sources are used without own knowledge, or knowledge without sources.

Level 1 (1-4): General assertion, copying sources, or very limited relevant material.

0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

Within a level, choose the mark by whether the response is on the borderline, just enough, slightly inconsistent, or consistently meets the descriptor. Responses that do not address the statement should not go higher than Level 3.

Indicative content (e.g.):
Source A supports: Bristol merchant's capital doubled by three voyages in the triangular trade; sugar sells everywhere. Knowledge: end of the Royal African Company monopoly 1698; growth of slave ports (Bristol, Liverpool, London); slave-based plantation economy in Caribbean and North America; rising consumerism. Provenance: private letter, writer has a stake.
Source B challenges: credit and the Bank of England (1694); East India Company trade with India and China; Crown finance. Knowledge: 1713 Treaty of Utrecht and asiento; 1719 South Sea Bubble. Provenance: promotional pamphlet by a financier.
Source C challenges: Darien Scheme failure; English protection and monopoly favoured connected merchants; link to 1707 Act of Union. Provenance: bitter Scottish investor; one failed venture.
Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited.

Nutshell: Wealth came from slavery-linked trade, but also from finance, Asian trade and state protection; the best answers weigh them.

SPaG (5 marks, awarded separately, thresholds):
- High performance (4-5): spelling and punctuation consistently accurate; grammar and meaning clear; wide range of specialist terms used accurately.
- Intermediate performance (2-3): spelling and punctuation generally accurate; meaning generally clear; some specialist terms used.
- Threshold performance (1): basic accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar; some meaning clear; limited specialist terms.
- No marks (0): errors prevent meaning being understood, or response not worthy of credit. Award 0 SPaG if the content mark is 0.

Reason 1: Silk industry and refuge. After 1685 (Revocation of the Edict of Nantes) Huguenots, many of them skilled silk weavers, fled France. Spitalfields lay just outside the City of London's guild restrictions, so they could set up as weavers there. Their tall houses with large top-floor windows (garret workshops) are still visible on streets such as Fournier Street, and the Huguenot church on Brick Lane shows the size of the community. Word of work and safety drew more arrivals, so the area became a centre of settlement.

Reason 2: Cheap housing and small workshops. As the silk trade declined in the 19th century, houses were subdivided and rents were low. When Jewish families fled persecution and pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe from the 1880s, they could rent rooms and workshops cheaply and find work in tailoring, boot-making and furniture trades that needed little capital. Synagogues, soup kitchens and charities already in the area supported them, and the building at Brick Lane that had been a church became a synagogue.

Reason 3 (alternative): Location and networks. Closeness to the docks and the City meant easy arrival and plentiful casual work; earlier arrivals wrote home or helped relatives (chain migration), so each group attracted the next.

A strong answer explains how each reason made Spitalfields attractive rather than just listing the groups.

AO1 (5 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5 marks) explanation and analysis of cause.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains two or more reasons, each developed with accurate and specific knowledge and clearly linked to why immigrants chose Spitalfields. Consistently meeting the criteria = 10; just enough = 9.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains one reason in a developed way, with accurate and specific support, and may identify or briefly describe a second reason.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Describes two or more reasons or factors with some accurate knowledge but the explanation is undeveloped or the link to the question is implied only. Should not go higher than Level 3 if no reason is developed.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Describes events or groups of immigrants in Spitalfields, or identifies reasons without explanation. Capped at this level if understanding is limited to narrative.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General assertion about immigration with little or no relevant knowledge of Spitalfields.
Level 0: No creditable response.

Marks within a level: consistently meeting the criteria = top mark; borderline or slightly inconsistent = lower mark.

Indicative content (e.g.):
- 'Huguenot weavers settled in Spitalfields after 1685 because the silk industry was already established there and it lay outside City guild control, so they could work freely. Their garret workshops on streets such as Fournier Street show why the trade drew more refugees.'
- 'Later, cheap rented housing and small workshops attracted poor Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the 1880s onwards, who needed work that required little capital, such as tailoring. Existing charities and synagogues helped them settle.'
- Candidates may also link the following reasons: closeness to the docks and the City; reputation for tolerance; chain migration; Irish migrants seeking casual labour in the 19th century.

Nutshell: Spitalfields drew migrants because it offered work, cheap housing and support from earlier arrivals, and each group's arrival encouraged the next.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Accept any valid features of the site's evidence. Do not credit later (post-1900) groups as the main reason, though brief mention may support a continuity point.

Source A (content): shows continuing arrival ('every ship'), religious motive for leaving France, skills in figured silk, concentration in lanes near Bishopsgate, and mixed reception (job fears among journeymen versus employer benefit). Source A (provenance): contemporary, c.1690, from someone who knew the trade first-hand; but written by an employer who profited from cheap skilled labour, so he may downplay hostility and exaggerate skill. It is a private letter, so it is probably candid. It is one person's view and does not cover how the Huguenots lived or the buildings.

Source B (content): top-floor long windows gave weavers light for looms, so home and workshop were combined; the plaque shows Huguenot descent and a master weaver status; the cellar and yard suggest storage and family life. Source B (provenance): 2019 photograph by a heritage group, so not contemporary, but the building itself is surviving physical evidence from the early 1700s, one or two generations after arrival. The plaque is an interpretation added later and one house cannot represent all Huguenots, many of whom were poorer.

Knowledge to use: Huguenot arrival after the 1685 revocation of the Edict of Nantes; settlement in Spitalfields, which lay outside the City guild control; weaving of silk; French church buildings later reused as other places of worship; later waves of migrants using the same buildings (a key theme of the site); local resentment at times of trade depression.

Judgement: Source A is more useful for reasons for arrival and reception; Source B is more useful for settlement, work patterns and the lasting impact on the area. Either judgement is acceptable if justified by criteria such as the enquiry focus (arrival and settlement).

AO3, 10 marks. Levels of response. No marks must be awarded for knowledge in isolation: knowledge must be used to interpret or evaluate the sources.

Level 5 (9-10): Evaluates BOTH sources in context, using content, provenance and knowledge to reach a sustained, supported judgement about which is more useful for the stated enquiry. Considers the usefulness and limitations of each. 9 marks if slightly inconsistent; 10 if consistently meets the criteria.

Level 4 (7-8): Evaluates both sources using content and knowledge, with some use of provenance; reaches a judgement but it may be less well supported, or one source is treated more fully than the other. Evaluation of only one source in depth, with a comparative judgement, is capped at 7.

Level 3 (5-6): Explains the usefulness of one or both sources from content, with some contextual knowledge, but evaluation is limited or there is no judgement. Provenance is used only generally.

Level 2 (3-4): Describes or paraphrases source content, or makes generalised comments on provenance (e.g. 'it is from the time so it is reliable'), with limited link to the enquiry.

Level 1 (1-2): General assertion or unsupported comment on a source; extracts are copied.

0: No relevant response.

Indicative content, e.g.: 'Source A is useful because it is a contemporary letter from c.1690 which shows that the Huguenots arrived because of their faith and that they were arriving in numbers. It also shows the mixed reception, with journeymen afraid of competition. However, the writer is an employer who gained from the weavers, so he may play down hostility. Source B is useful because the surviving house and its top-floor windows show how weavers lived and worked in Spitalfields and that the Huguenots settled permanently and prospered...'
Nutshell: stronger responses test each source against the question on arrival and settlement and weigh them.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable and should be credited. Accept either source as more useful if justified. Accept valid comments on reliability, purpose, type of source, and what the source cannot tell us.