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

A strong answer outlines at least two or three developed features. For example: (1) The Plan was drawn up by an international committee led by the American banker Charles Dawes after Germany fell behind with reparations and France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr in 1923. (2) It did not cut the total owed but rescheduled payments, starting low and rising over time as Germany's economy recovered. (3) It provided American loans of 800 million gold marks to help Germany rebuild its economy and stabilise its currency. (4) France agreed to withdraw from the Ruhr. (5) Effects: German industry recovered and hyperinflation was not repeated; American money flowed into Germany; Germany paid reparations to Britain and France, who used them to repay their war debts to the USA, so a cycle of payments developed; tensions between Germany and France eased, making the Locarno agreements of 1925 more likely. The weakness was that Germany became dependent on American loans, which was exposed after 1929.

AO1 (5 marks). Levels of response, with 'outlines' meaning a brief account of features rather than a full explanation.

Level 1 (1 mark): Identifies ONE accurate point, or gives a very general statement (for example 'it helped Germany pay reparations').
Level 2 (2 marks): Gives one accurate and specific point, or two generic points.
Level 3 (3 marks): Gives two accurate and specific points, or one specific point with some development.
Level 4 (4 marks): Gives three accurate and specific points, or two points that are well developed.
Level 5 (5 marks): Gives a range of accurate, specific and developed features or effects, with a clear overview of the Plan and its consequences.

Within a level: bottom of the level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistently achieving the level.

Level 4 answers will typically include features such as: the Plan rescheduled reparations so that payments began low and increased with recovery; American loans of 800 million gold marks were provided; French troops left the Ruhr; German industry and the currency recovered.
Level 5 answers will typically add effects such as the circular flow of money (USA to Germany to Britain and France and back to the USA) or improved relations leading to Locarno.

N.B. Material about the Young Plan of 1929 or the 1923 hyperinflation may only be credited where it is clearly linked to the Dawes Plan. Answers on the Treaty of Versailles with no link to the Plan should not be credited. Any other correct point should also be credited. Indicative content shows the type of sophistication expected and is not a full model answer.

A strong answer explains at least two or three linked reasons, each tied to the question of deepening division.

Reason 1 - Currency and the merging of the zones: Britain, France and the USA merged their zones and introduced the Deutschmark in June 1948, partly to make Marshall Plan aid effective. Stalin saw this as the creation of a strong, separate West Germany and feared a revived Germany. He closed road, rail and canal links into West Berlin, which lay deep in the Soviet zone. This showed that the two sides had incompatible aims for Germany, so cooperation of the kind seen at Potsdam had ended.

Reason 2 - The Airlift: Rather than use force or abandon the city, the Western Allies flew in food and fuel for almost a year (over 2 million tonnes). This showed Western determination and made the USSR appear to be starving civilians. Stalin lifted the blockade in May 1949 having failed, which left bitterness and distrust and strengthened Western belief in the need for containment.

Reason 3 - The division of Germany: In 1949 the Western zones became the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet zone became the German Democratic Republic. Germany, and Berlin, were now formally divided into two rival states.

Reason 4 - Military alliances: Fear of Soviet aggression led twelve countries to form NATO in April 1949, the first peacetime US military alliance in Europe. The USSR later answered with the Warsaw Pact (1955), creating two armed blocs.

A top answer links these to the longer pattern of rising tensions since 1945 (Eastern Europe, Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan).

AO1 (5 marks): knowledge and understanding of the Blockade and its context. AO2 (5 marks): explanation of cause and consequence using second-order concepts. Levels of response.

Level 5 (9-10 marks) - Explains TWO or more reasons in a sustained, analytical way, with accurate and detailed knowledge and explicit links to why division deepened. Bottom of level: two developed reasons with minor imbalance; middle: some inconsistency in the depth of explanation; top: consistently well-supported, with links between factors.
Level 4 (7-8 marks) - Explains TWO reasons with accurate, relevant knowledge, showing clear understanding of the question focus.
Level 3 (5-6 marks) - Explains ONE reason fully, or identifies two or more reasons with some support but limited explanation.
Level 2 (3-4 marks) - Describes the Blockade or Airlift with some accurate knowledge but limited explanation of division.
Level 1 (1-2 marks) - Generalised or very limited statements on Cold War tension.
0 marks - No creditable content.

Level 4 answers will typically explain, for example, that the new currency and merged Western zones led Stalin to blockade Berlin, and that the successful Airlift left the West determined to resist the USSR, leading to NATO in 1949.

Indicative content (exemplifying sophistication, not a full model answer): currency reform and the creation of a West German state; Stalin's fear of a revived Germany; the Airlift and propaganda; the formal division of Germany in 1949; NATO and the later Warsaw Pact; links to the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Any other correct, relevant reason should also be credited.

N.B. Answers that only narrate events without explaining why the division deepened should not exceed Level 2. Answers that discuss the 1961 Berlin Wall as the main focus should be capped at Level 2 unless linked to the 1948-49 period.

Indicative approach (not a full model answer).

1. Identify and evaluate the interpretation's argument: appeasement was realistic, driven by economic weakness, imperial overstretch and public opinion, and bought time for rearmament; the failure was Hitler's, not Chamberlain's.

2. Knowledge supporting A: the economic damage of the Depression; Treasury pressure on defence budgets; Britain's commitments to the Empire and Japan's threat in the Far East; strong pacifist feeling in the 1930s (e.g. 1933 Oxford Union debate, Peace Ballot 1935); the memory of the First World War; Chiefs of Staff warnings of unpreparedness in 1938; rearmament speeded up after Munich (radar, Spitfire and Hurricane production, Air Raid precautions); Dominion reluctance to support war in 1938; many Germans' grievances with Versailles seemed to have some justification.

3. Knowledge challenging A: Hitler's actions (rearmament 1935, Rhineland 1936, Anschluss 1938, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia March 1939) showed that concessions encouraged further demands; Britain and France were strong enough to resist in 1936 when Germany's army was small; Munich 1938 abandoned Czechoslovakia, its strong defences and arms industry (Skoda), so Germany may have gained more than Britain from the delay; the USSR was excluded from Munich, pushing it towards the Nazi–Soviet Pact 1939; the League and Stresa Front were undermined (Abyssinia, Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935); Chamberlain's personal faith in negotiation and his distrust of Soviet and US help; Churchill and others opposed the policy at the time.

4. Other interpretations: the 'Guilty Men' view of the early 1940s, shaped by the Second World War, condemned appeasers as weak and naive; later revisionist historians, with access to government archives after the thirty-year rule, argued that Chamberlain had few options and was constrained by finance, defence advice and public opinion (as Interpretation A does); some later accounts, influenced by Cold War concerns and post-1990 evidence, emphasise different factors such as the attitudes of France and the Dominions, or the failings of Soviet policy. Explain why historians differ: the time of writing, evidence available, and the influence of contemporary events.

5. Judgement: A is a fair comment on the constraints and the argument that rearmament gained time, but is less convincing in claiming Britain was better placed in 1939, and in placing responsibility so heavily on Hitler while ignoring avoidable British mistakes. Credit any well-supported conclusion.

AO4 (20 marks) + AO1 knowledge (5 marks). Levels of response; best-fit marking.

Level 5 (21–25 marks) – Evaluates the interpretation using other interpretations AND own knowledge to reach a sustained, supported judgement.
- Analyses the argument of Interpretation A in detail and tests it against other views and detailed, accurate knowledge.
- Explains how and why interpretations differ (e.g. time of writing, evidence available, influence of the Second World War or the Cold War).
- Reaches a fully substantiated judgement about how fair the comment is.

Level 4 (16–20 marks) – Evaluates the interpretation with supporting reference to other interpretations and knowledge.
- Identifies the main points of A and assesses them with relevant, accurate knowledge and some use of other views.
- Judgement is stated and supported but may be partly developed.

Level 3 (11–15 marks) – Explains the interpretation's argument and supports or challenges it with knowledge.
- Some accurate knowledge applied to A; other interpretations mentioned but not fully used.
- Judgement may be asserted rather than developed.

Level 2 (6–10 marks) – Identifies the interpretation's view and offers general support or challenge.
- Largely descriptive knowledge of appeasement with limited link to A.

Level 1 (1–5 marks) – Simple, undeveloped comments; paraphrases A or gives generalised knowledge of appeasement.

0 marks – No creditworthy response.

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline or inconsistent work; middle for some inconsistency; top for consistent achievement of the descriptors.

Level 4 answers will typically: argue that A is fair on the economic and public-opinion constraints (e.g. Depression, Peace Ballot) and on rearmament after Munich, but challenge its claim that Britain was better prepared by 1939 by pointing to the loss of Czechoslovakia's resources and Soviet distrust, and contrast A with the 'Guilty Men' view.

N.B. Answers that only describe appeasement events with no reference to the interpretation are capped at Level 2. Answers that misunderstand A (e.g. treating it as criticising Chamberlain) are capped at Level 2. Answers should be credited whether they agree, disagree or reach a balanced view, provided it is sufficiently developed. Indicative content is illustrative of sophistication, not a full model answer; any other correct and relevant knowledge should be credited.

A strong answer identifies what Interpretation A argues (sole Soviet responsibility, with the USA defensive and generous) and explains why other historians disagree, using the stimulus points and own knowledge.

1. Context and the time of writing: Marchetti wrote in 1972, a time when the Cold War was ongoing and many Western writers took a traditional view. After the Vietnam War, 'revisionist' historians in the USA questioned American motives and argued that the USA used economic power and its atomic monopoly to pursue its own interests. Writers after c.1990 had access to Soviet material and could take a more balanced 'post-revisionist' view.

2. Selection of events and emphasis: Interpretation A selects Soviet control of Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia) and the Berlin Blockade. Others stress that the Marshall Plan, offered in 1947, was also designed to open European markets to US trade and to bind Western Europe to the USA; that Stalin saw it as economic encirclement and created Cominform in response; that the Western powers' decision to merge their zones and introduce a new currency in Germany provoked the Blockade rather than the Blockade starting the confrontation; that Potsdam and Yalta left ambiguity about spheres of influence; and that Truman's tougher line and use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima in 1945 alarmed Stalin. The claim that Stalin broke promises about free elections ignores that Britain and the USA had accepted the Soviet role in the region at Yalta.

3. Interpretation of motives: The USSR had suffered some 20 million deaths in the war and wanted a buffer zone for security against a revived Germany; some historians see Stalin as cautious and defensive, not seeking world conquest. Others still emphasise Communist ideology and expansion. Truman's motives may be read as containment or as US global dominance.

4. New evidence: After c.1990 Soviet archives showed Stalin was cautious yet ruthless, and that both sides misread each other. This leads to the view that responsibility was shared and that suspicion on both sides escalated the situation.

Judgement: Interpretation A is a traditional, one-sided view reflecting its date, selected events and assumptions about motive; differences arise from period, evidence and interpretation of intent. Remaining 5 marks: SPaG (accuracy, control of grammar, specialist vocabulary such as containment, satellite states, sphere of influence, revisionist).

Total 25 marks: 20 marks AO4 (interpretations, why they differ) with AO1 knowledge supporting it; plus 5 marks SPaG and specialist terminology (awarded separately).

AO4 (Levels of response, 20 marks)
Level 5 (17-20): Explains the reasons why historians differ with sustained, well-supported evaluation of the interpretation in its context. Considers THREE or more reasons (e.g. time of writing, selection of evidence, view of motives, new sources) and shows how they link to each other. Uses accurate, detailed knowledge to demonstrate why Interpretation A differs from others. Typical Level 5 answers will explain, for example, that a 1972 Western writer reflected Cold War attitudes whereas post-Vietnam revisionists blamed US economic and atomic power, and that post-1990 archives support shared responsibility, with specific reference to the Marshall Plan, Cominform and the Berlin Blockade.
Level 4 (13-16): Explains TWO reasons why historians differ, with developed use of the interpretation and knowledge. Typical Level 4 answers will explain that the Marshall Plan can be read as generous (Interpretation A) or as economic dominance, and that Stalin's security needs after the war are given less weight by Marchetti.
Level 3 (9-12): Explains ONE reason with development, or identifies several reasons with limited explanation. Some accurate knowledge is used, but links to Interpretation A may be partial.
Level 2 (5-8): Identifies differences or reasons, e.g. 'historians had different sources' or 'she was biased', with limited support. Mostly describes the Cold War rather than explaining why views differ.
Level 1 (1-4): General comment or description of events with little or no link to the interpretation or to differences between historians.
0: No creditable response.

Mark within a level: bottom of level for borderline or inconsistent work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement of the descriptor.

N.B. Answers which only evaluate whether A is correct, without explaining why others differ, cannot score above Level 2. Answers that do not use the interpretation are capped at Level 3. Any other valid reasons for difference, supported with accurate evidence, should be credited. Indicative content is illustrative of sophistication, not a full model answer.

SPaG (5 marks)
High performance (4-5): spelling and punctuation consistently accurate; grammar controlled; wide range of specialist terms used appropriately.
Intermediate performance (2-3): spelling and punctuation generally accurate; some control of grammar; adequate range of specialist terms.
Threshold performance (1): basic spelling and punctuation, some errors; limited range of specialist terms.
No marks: errors prevent meaning being understood or no response creditworthy.

A strong answer gives one effect of Prohibition (the ban on making and selling alcohol under the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act, 1920) and supports it with specific detail. Example: Prohibition created a huge illegal market for alcohol, which was supplied by bootleggers and sold in speakeasies. Gangs in cities such as Chicago grew rich and powerful by controlling this trade, and corrupted police and officials with bribes, so organised crime expanded.

Points marking, AO1, 2 marks.
1 mark: an accurate but general point about an effect of Prohibition (e.g. 'it led to more crime', 'people drank illegally in speakeasies').
1 further mark: for specific supporting detail or development (e.g. gangs controlled bootlegging and speakeasies in Chicago; bribery of police and officials; smuggling from Canada; home-made 'bathtub gin'; rise in hip flasks and illegal drinking in fashionable circles).
Other correct examples should also be credited, e.g. the weakening of respect for the law; some reduction in alcohol-related illness in some areas; support from women's and church groups who saw the ban as a success.
N.B. Award a maximum of 1 mark if the answer only describes what Prohibition was (the ban itself) and does not describe an effect on society. Do not credit two separate general effects as one developed example: only one example is required, and the second mark must be earned by development of that example.

Model approach: explain several ways, each with specific knowledge and a link to relieving unemployment or hardship.

1. Direct job creation in the Hundred Days (1933). Roosevelt, elected in 1932 with unemployment at around a quarter of the workforce, set up the Civilian Conservation Corps, which gave young unemployed men work on conservation projects such as planting trees and building paths, with part of their pay sent home to families. The Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority funded dams and building projects that employed workers and brought electricity and flood control to a poor region. This relieved unemployment by giving people wages rather than relief handouts.

2. Immediate relief and protecting livelihoods. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration gave money to states to feed the hungry. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation helped families refinance mortgages so they did not lose their homes, and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration paid farmers to cut production in order to raise prices and farm incomes. This tackled hardship for people who were not unemployed but were at risk of ruin.

3. The Second New Deal (1935 onwards). The Works Progress Administration employed millions on roads, schools and public buildings, and also on arts and writing projects, helping white-collar workers. The Social Security Act 1935 set up old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, giving a long-term safety net. The Wagner Act protected the right to join trade unions, helping workers to negotiate wages and conditions.

4. Limits (for the highest levels). Unemployment was still around 10 million in 1938 after the 1937-38 recession, and many groups such as farm labourers, domestic workers and many African Americans were excluded from Social Security or benefited less. The New Deal relieved hardship but only the arrival of wartime production ended mass unemployment.

A top answer might conclude that the New Deal relieved hardship by combining short-term relief with longer-term protection, though it did not fully cure unemployment.

AO1 (5 marks): knowledge and understanding. AO2 (5 marks): explanation and analysis using the second-order concept of cause/consequence (how the measures relieved hardship). Levels of response; mark holistically using the best fit.

Level 5 (9-10 marks) - explains TWO or more ways in a fully developed way
- Sustained, accurate and specific knowledge of New Deal measures between 1933 and 1939.
- Clear, well-supported explanation of HOW each measure relieved unemployment or hardship, with a sustained line of reasoning.
- May show awareness of limits or of the overall pattern (relief, recovery, reform).
Level 5 answers will typically explain, for example, how the CCC, PWA and WPA gave jobs and wages AND how the Social Security Act and Wagner Act offered long-term protection, with specific details (e.g. CCC work on conservation, WPA employing millions, pensions and unemployment insurance).

Level 4 (7-8 marks) - explains TWO ways, with some development
- Accurate and relevant knowledge; both ways explained with a clear link to the question, although one may be less developed.

Level 3 (5-6 marks) - explains ONE way well, or two ways partially
- Some accurate knowledge; one way is developed with a clear explanation of how it helped, the other is described or underdeveloped.

Level 2 (3-4 marks) - describes one or more ways, with limited explanation
- Accurate but general or descriptive knowledge; link to relieving hardship is implied or asserted.

Level 1 (1-2 marks) - general or limited statements
- Vague comment about the New Deal or Roosevelt helping poor people, with little or no accurate detail.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Mark within a level: bottom of level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement of the level descriptors.

Indicative content (to exemplify sophistication, not a full model answer): CCC; PWA; TVA; FERA; HOLC; AAA; WPA; Social Security Act 1935; Wagner Act 1935; limits such as the 1937-38 recession and groups excluded from benefits.

N.B. Any other valid way, supported with accurate detail, should be credited. Content from before 1933 or after 1939 (e.g. wartime production) should not be credited except as brief context or to support a judgement on limits. Answers that only describe the Depression's effects without explaining New Deal measures should be capped at Level 1.

Step 1 - Read the source: Roosevelt is the cook and the New Deal is the pot, so the government is providing for people. The line of thin, ragged people shows how great the need is. The alphabet letters represent the many agencies of the First New Deal (e.g. CCC, AAA, FERA) set up in the Hundred Days of 1933. The 'Business' figure frowning at the bill and the caption 'who will pay for the meal?' suggest doubts about cost.

Step 2 - Add knowledge: Roosevelt won the 1932 election promising a New Deal after Hoover's approach failed to stop the Depression. Millions were unemployed. The CCC gave jobs to young men, the AAA paid farmers, and FERA gave relief to states. Critics, including many businessmen, said government spending, deficits and 'big government' were excessive and threatened free enterprise.

Step 3 - Message: the New Deal gives generous help to those in need, but the cartoonist questions who will pay, so the message is that the policy is helpful yet costly and open to criticism.

AO3 - 5 marks. Levels of response.

Level 1 (1 mark): Describes or copies the source without a message. Nutshell: describes the source. E.g. 'Roosevelt is giving out soup.'

Level 2 (2 marks): Identifies a simple message, supported by a detail from the source OR knowledge. Nutshell: simple message. E.g. 'The cartoonist thinks the New Deal is feeding the poor.'

Level 3 (3 marks): Explains ONE message, supported by details of the source and/or contextual knowledge. Nutshell: explains one message. E.g. 'The message is that the New Deal is helping the poor: Roosevelt is the cook and the queue is of ragged people, showing the New Deal agencies such as the CCC gave relief and work to the unemployed.'

Level 4 (4 marks): Explains the message, using both source details and accurate contextual knowledge of the New Deal and its reception. Nutshell: explains message with source and knowledge. E.g. as Level 3 but with developed knowledge of the Hundred Days or criticism from business.

Level 5 (5 marks): Explains a developed, nuanced message (help for the needy but doubts over cost) and links to the cartoonist's purpose or the 1934 context, supported by both the source and specific knowledge. Nutshell: sophisticated message, well supported. E.g. 'The cartoonist shows that the New Deal gives much-needed relief, since the queue is long and the pot is large, but the frowning businessman and the caption suggest the cost falls on taxpayers. This reflects 1934 criticism, such as from many in business, that government spending and the alphabet agencies went too far, so the cartoonist is gently warning about the price of relief.'

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (to exemplify sophistication, not a full model answer): Roosevelt as provider; 'alphabet' agencies (CCC, AAA, FERA); scale of unemployment; Hundred Days; business and taxpayer worries; deficit spending; later opposition to the New Deal.

N.B. Any other valid message supported by the source should be credited. If the answer only describes the source, cap at Level 1. If the answer gives only knowledge of the New Deal with no link to the source, cap at Level 2. If the cartoon is misunderstood (e.g. seen as simply hostile or simply praising with no use of details), cap at Level 3.

Content: the writer was long-term unemployed after two years on the road. The CCC gave him paid outdoor work, a camp, food and a wage, much of it sent to his mother. This supports knowledge that the CCC (March 1933, Hundred Days) gave work to unemployed young men, paid about $30 a month with most sent to families, and boosted confidence in Roosevelt. Some men did dislike the camp discipline, which the source admits.

Nature, origin and purpose: a letter to a local newspaper in 1933, written by a participant at the time, so it is a contemporary, first-hand view. It is likely to be sympathetic to the New Deal and was meant to be read publicly and to persuade ('Mr Roosevelt has given us a chance'). It is one man's experience, early in the New Deal. It says nothing about women, African Americans, farmers or those not reached by relief, and the CCC was temporary work, not a cure for unemployment.

A strong answer reaches a judgement: useful for the personal impact of relief on young unemployed men and for the mood of hope in 1933, but limited as evidence of the whole New Deal.

AO3 (5 marks). Levels of response.

Level 1 (1 mark): Identifies a simple, undeveloped point about the source, e.g. 'It is useful because it is about the CCC' or 'It is from the time'. Copying or paraphrasing the source without comment stays here.

Level 2 (2 marks): Explains usefulness using ONE aspect of content OR provenance in a general or limited way, e.g. 'It shows he got a wage and food, so it shows the New Deal helped the unemployed.'

Level 3 (3 marks): Explains usefulness using content AND/OR provenance with some development, supported by the source and some own knowledge, e.g. the CCC wage is linked to the aim of giving relief to unemployed young men.

Level 4 (4 marks): Explains usefulness by analysing content AND the nature, origin or purpose of the source (a contemporary first-hand letter to a newspaper, supportive of Roosevelt), with relevant contextual knowledge. A reasoned judgement on usefulness may be attempted but is partly unsupported.

Level 5 (5 marks): As Level 4, with a sustained, supported judgement that weighs the strengths of the source (first-hand, contemporary, shows pay, work and morale) against its limits (one man, a supporter, early in the New Deal, silent on women, African Americans and farmers), all in the context of the impact of the New Deal on ordinary Americans.

Mark within a level: bottom for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement.

Level 4 answers will typically say: 'The source is useful because it shows the CCC gave an unemployed man work and a wage that he sent to his mother, which fits with the New Deal aim of relief. It was written in 1933 by someone in a camp, so it is first-hand. However, it was published in a newspaper and he praises Roosevelt, so it may leave out the bad side, such as the discipline he mentions only briefly.'

N.B. Do not credit answers that only describe the CCC without linking it to the source. Answers that use only own knowledge, with no reference to the source, are capped at Level 2. Answers that only say the source is biased or one-sided, without explaining why, are capped at Level 2. Any other valid line of reasoning should be credited. The indicative content exemplifies the level of sophistication and is not a full model answer.

Indicative approach (not a full model answer):

Agree – relief for many:
- Emergency Banking Act and Roosevelt's fireside chats (1933) restored confidence; banks reopened and deposits were protected later by the FDIC.
- FERA, the CCC and the CWA/PWA/WPA gave direct relief and work to millions of unemployed, especially young men in the CCC; the TVA brought jobs and electricity to a poor region.
- AAA and later farm measures supported farm prices; HOLC helped people facing loss of their homes.
- Second New Deal: the Social Security Act 1935 (old-age pensions, unemployment insurance) and the Wagner Act 1935 strengthened workers' rights and security.
- Roosevelt's 1936 landslide re-election suggests many ordinary Americans felt helped.

Disagree – limits and uneven help:
- Unemployment remained high (several million still jobless in 1939); the 1937–38 recession followed cuts in spending.
- AAA payments favoured larger farmers; tenant farmers and sharecroppers were often evicted. Many African Americans were excluded or received lower pay, and Social Security initially excluded farm and domestic workers (many women and black workers).
- Criticism from Huey Long, Father Coughlin and Dr Townsend suggested relief was inadequate; the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA and AAA; some Republicans and businessmen thought it went too far.
- Full economic recovery is usually linked to rearmament and the Second World War.

Judgement: a convincing conclusion weighs the scale of relief against its unevenness and the meaning of 'most', e.g. the New Deal gave real security and hope to many, but not equally and not enough to end the Depression.

AO1 (7 marks) and AO2 (11 marks) – Levels of response. Total 18.

Level 5 (16–18) – Sustained analysis leading to a fully supported judgement. Nutshell: sustained, balanced evaluation of the claim.
- Wide-ranging, accurate and detailed knowledge of the New Deal throughout.
- Explains both how far it relieved ordinary Americans and its limits, with sustained links to the question.
- Reaches a well-substantiated judgement that weighs factors against each other.
Level 5 answers will typically weigh evidence of relief (e.g. Social Security, CCC/WPA, Wagner Act) against its unevenness and the 1937–38 recession, and explain which matters more.

Level 4 (12–15) – Developed analysis with a supported judgement. Nutshell: developed explanation of both sides or one side in depth.
- Accurate, relevant and detailed knowledge.
- Explains several factors; analysis is mostly sustained.
- A judgement is made, though weighing may be less secure.
Level 4 answers will typically explain at least two ways the New Deal helped and at least one limit, with specific detail.

Level 3 (8–11) – Some explanation with a basic judgement. Nutshell: explains at least TWO points.
- Some accurate knowledge; explanation present but may be uneven or partly descriptive.
- Judgement is stated but weakly supported.

Level 2 (4–7) – Mostly description; some relevant knowledge. Nutshell: describes/ explains ONE point.

Level 1 (1–3) – Generalised or limited knowledge with little link to the question. Nutshell: simple statements.

0 marks – no relevant material.

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement.

N.B. Responses may be one-sided or balanced provided they are sufficiently developed. Any other correct and relevant content (e.g. Fair Labor Standards Act 1938, Resettlement Administration, Indian New Deal, Dust Bowl migration) should be credited. Material outside 1933–1941 should be credited only where relevant. Answers that only describe New Deal agencies without addressing 'relief for most ordinary Americans' are capped at Level 2. Indicative content exemplifies sophistication and is not a full model answer.

Choose two distinct examples of royal treatment. A strong answer gives a general point and then supports it with specific detail. For example: Jews came to England after the Norman Conquest and were under the king's protection, because the Crown benefited from their moneylending (generic point). Kings could then tax them very heavily through tallages, and records show the Crown could seize debts owed to Jews when a lender died (specific detail). Second example: in 1290 Edward I issued an edict expelling the Jews from England, after the Statute of Jewry in 1275 had banned moneylending at interest and left many with no legal way of earning a living. Around 2,000 people are thought to have left, and their property and debts passed to the Crown.

Points marking. AO1 (4 marks). Award up to 2 marks for each of TWO examples: 1 mark for an accurate but generic identification/description of an example, and a 2nd mark for specific supporting detail or development (names, dates, figures, specific actions).

Indicative content (any other correct example should also be credited):
- Royal protection: after 1066 Jews were encouraged to settle and were under the king's protection (1) because the Crown profited from their moneylending, e.g. debts could be taken over by the Crown on the death of a lender (1).
- Taxation: Jews were heavily taxed through tallages (1), imposed arbitrarily, e.g. to fund the king's wars or building projects (1).
- Legal and economic restriction: Jews were barred from many trades and guilds and, since Christians could not lend at interest, were channelled into moneylending (1); the Statute of Jewry 1275 banned moneylending at interest (1).
- Expulsion: in 1290 Edward I expelled all Jews from England (1), with their property and debts passing to the Crown, after taxes had been granted to him by Parliament (1).
- Separation/identification: Jews were required to wear a distinguishing badge (1) under Henry III/Edward I (1).

N.B. Maximum 2 marks if only one example is described, however developed. Two points from the same example (e.g. two aspects of the expulsion) count as one example. Do not credit treatment by the general population (e.g. riots such as 1190 at York) unless linked to Crown action. Do not credit examples outside 1066-1290.

Indicative content (this exemplifies sophistication and is not a full model answer):

1. Religious persecution (push factor): Huguenots were French Protestants. Violence such as the St Bartholomew's Day massacre (1572) caused earlier flights, and Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 ended toleration, closing Huguenot churches and pressing people to convert. Staying meant danger or forced conversion, so tens of thousands fled; many came to Britain.

2. Protestant welcome (pull factor): Britain was a Protestant country that saw the Huguenots as fellow victims of Catholic persecution. The Crown, Church and public gave support, including charitable collections (briefs), the right to worship in their own churches, and naturalisation for some. Earlier arrivals, including those in the 16th century, had set up communities that made Britain a known and safer destination.

3. Economic opportunity and skills (pull factor): Many Huguenots were skilled craftworkers (silk weavers, clockmakers, silversmiths, hatters). English authorities and merchants valued these skills. Areas like Spitalfields in London and towns such as Canterbury offered work, and chain migration meant newcomers joined family and fellow believers.

4. Geography and links: Britain's closeness to France and established trade routes made the journey possible, especially compared with more distant destinations.

Better answers explain how factors linked, e.g. persecution pushed them out but Protestant sympathy and work opportunities made Britain a preferred destination.

AO1 (4 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (4 marks) explanation of cause. Levels of response.

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Explains TWO or more reasons fully, with accurate and specific supporting knowledge, and shows how the reasons connect or interact. Answer is sustained and analytical.
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Explains TWO reasons, with accurate supporting knowledge, but with limited linkage or some imbalance.
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Explains ONE reason with supporting knowledge, or identifies two or more reasons with some support but limited explanation.
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Makes simple or generalised statements about why Huguenots came, with little accurate knowledge or no explanation.
0 marks: No relevant content.

Within a level: bottom = borderline/limited; middle = some inconsistency; top = consistent achievement of the descriptor.

Level 4 answers will typically explain, for example, that the 1685 revocation of the Edict of Nantes removed Huguenots' right to worship (specific detail), and then that Britain's Protestant identity and charitable support, together with demand for skills such as silk weaving in Spitalfields, made it an attractive destination, linking push and pull factors.

Acceptable alternatives: any other valid reason supported by accurate knowledge, e.g. earlier Huguenot communities, the St Bartholomew's Day massacre (1572), chain migration, royal protection, geographical proximity.

N.B. Answers describing Huguenot experiences after arrival, or only listing reasons without explanation, should not exceed Level 2. Answers that are accurate on the period c.1550–c.1700 but confuse Huguenots with other groups (e.g. Palatines in 1709) should be capped at Level 2.

Significance means how much difference an event or group made, to whom, and for how long. Plan: (1) Economic significance: after the 1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, c.50,000 Huguenots came to Britain; many settled in Spitalfields, London, and developed the silk-weaving industry, plus other crafts such as watchmaking, silversmithing and hat-making; some became financiers. Silk weaving became a major London industry in the 18th century and provided jobs for English workers as well. (2) Social and cultural significance: they founded French Protestant churches, relief organisations and schools; they helped shape the area's character (weavers' houses with large upper-floor windows) and influenced the idea of Britain as a refuge for persecuted Protestants. (3) Response: broadly welcomed by the Crown and public, with collections for relief, since they were Protestant and fleeing Catholic France; but some resentment over competition, and anti-foreign sentiment, e.g. riots by weavers' workers over wages and the Naturalisation debates. (4) Limits to significance: relatively small numbers; they assimilated quickly, with French lost within a few generations; Britain's economic development relied more on its own existing textile industry and on empire, and later migrants (Irish, Scots, Jewish) had a greater long-term demographic impact. (5) Judgement: highly significant for particular industries and places, and for Britain's refugee tradition, but only moderately significant for Britain overall. Any reasoned conclusion is acceptable if supported.

AO1 (4 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (10 marks) analysis of significance. Levels of response:

Level 1 (1–3 marks): Identifies a simple statement about the Huguenots or their arrival, with little or no link to significance. Answers are generic or contain inaccuracies.

Level 2 (4–6 marks): Describes ONE aspect of the Huguenots' significance (e.g. their skills in silk weaving) with some accurate knowledge but limited explanation of why it mattered. Nutshell: explains ONE factor or describes several without explanation.

Level 3 (7–9 marks): Explains TWO or more aspects of significance (e.g. economic and cultural, or impact and reception) using accurate, relevant knowledge. Some attempt at a judgement but it is not sustained or fully supported.

Level 4 (10–12 marks): Explains several aspects of significance and evaluates them, considering significance to different groups, places or time spans, and reaches a supported judgement. Accurate and specific knowledge is used throughout.

Level 5 (13–14 marks): Sustained, well-substantiated evaluation of the significance of the Huguenots, weighing the extent and duration of the impact against other factors or groups (e.g. small numbers, rapid assimilation, later Irish/Scottish migration). A convincing overall judgement runs through the answer.

Within each level: bottom of level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement.

Indicative content (exemplifies sophistication, not a full model answer): Revocation of the Edict of Nantes 1685; c.50,000 refugees; Spitalfields silk weaving; craft, banking and trade skills; French churches and charities; welcomed as Protestant refugees; some resentment from English workers; quick assimilation; comparison with other migrations c.1500–1900.

N.B. Answers may be one-sided or balanced provided they are sufficiently developed. Any other relevant, accurate content should be credited. Answers that focus only on Huguenots outside the period c.1680–c.1750 or that contain no reference to impact on Britain should be capped at Level 2. Bullet points in the stem are prompts only; candidates need not use them. Typical Level 4 answer: 'The Huguenots were very significant for the silk industry in Spitalfields, where their weaving skills created a major trade, and they also strengthened Britain's image as a Protestant refuge. However, their small numbers and fast assimilation limited their significance compared with the later Irish migration…'

Indicative content (exemplifies sophistication; not a full model answer).

Agree: Huguenots fled France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and settled in places such as Spitalfields, bringing silk-weaving skills; c.50,000 came. Palatine refugees arrived in 1709, partly driven by war and religious pressures, with Protestant Britain offering sanctuary. Jewish people were readmitted in 1656, and from the 1880s Eastern European Jews fled persecution and pogroms in the Russian Empire. Protestant refugees were often welcomed because they were co-religionists, showing how religion shaped both departure and reception.

Disagree: Economic reasons drove most migration. Irish migrants, especially after the 1840s, came for work in factories, building canals and railways and in port towns; Scots moved south for industrial work. Many Palatines and Eastern European Jews were also driven by poverty and hope of opportunity. Lascar seamen came because of the East India Company's trade needs, and ayahs and child servants travelled with employers. Africans came through trade and the Royal African Company and as enslaved people, which was forced migration rather than refuge-seeking. Some Africans in Tudor England arrived as servants, entertainers or sailors.

Judgement: religion mattered strongly for particular groups and moments, but did not dominate across 400 years. Economic pull, empire and trade, and force were responsible for larger and more continuous flows. Credit one-sided or balanced answers if developed and supported, with a sustained judgement.

AO1 (8 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (16 marks) explanation and analysis of cause, change and continuity, using the concept of significance of reasons. Levels of response.

Level 5 (21-24): Sustained, well-supported analysis and judgement. Nutshell: a sustained, developed evaluation reaching a substantiated judgement.
- Explains and evaluates religious and other reasons, with accurate and detailed knowledge across the period c.1500-1900.
- Reaches a well-supported overall judgement on 'how far', weighing the relative importance of reasons.
Level 5 answers will typically weigh the Huguenots (1685) and Jewish refugees from the 1880s against Irish economic migration, Lascars and enslaved Africans, and conclude with a justified view of the balance.

Level 4 (16-20): Nutshell: developed analysis of both sides with a judgement, lacking some sustained evaluation.
- Accurate, relevant knowledge applied to the question, with a judgement that is supported but may be uneven.
Level 4 answers will typically explain the persecution of Huguenots and then argue that economic reasons such as Irish labour migration were also important.

Level 3 (11-15): Nutshell: explains one or more reasons, with some links to the question.
- Some developed explanation of at least one side; judgement is partial or asserted.

Level 2 (6-10): Nutshell: identifies reasons with limited explanation.
- Descriptive, generalised or partly relevant knowledge.

Level 1 (1-5): Nutshell: simple statements about migration.
- Limited, general or inaccurate knowledge; little link to the question.

Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline work, middle for some inconsistency, top for consistent achievement. Responses may be one-sided or balanced provided they are sufficiently developed.

N.B. Any other correct example should be credited, e.g. Flemish weavers, Dutch drainage engineers, Black Poor, Germans, Italians, Chinese seafarers. Candidates are not required to name every group. Material outside c.1500-1900 should not be credited, except as brief context. If the candidate does not address the idea of reasons for migration, cap at Level 2.

AO1 and AO2 are marked together as a single level.

Indicative content (not a full model answer).

1. Darien Scheme: Scottish investors put a large share of the nation's capital into a colony on the Isthmus of Panama in the late 1690s. It failed through disease, Spanish hostility and lack of English support, leaving many Scottish investors, including nobles, financially ruined. Union offered compensation (the 'Equivalent') and access to English colonial and trade networks that Scotland lacked, so Union became attractive to many Scots.

2. Hanoverian succession: After 1688 and the Act of Settlement, England wished the crown to pass to the Protestant Hanoverians when Queen Anne died childless. The Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Security (1704), hinting Scotland might choose a different monarch, which risked a Stuart-supporting Scotland allied with France during war. England pressured Scotland (Alien Act 1705) and secured Union to guarantee the succession.

3. Own knowledge: English security and war with France; trade access for Scotland, including the colonies; the Scottish elites' interests and political management, including payments and promises; free trade within Britain; Scotland keeping its own church and legal system. Links to later Jacobite risings show opposition persisted.

A strong answer explains how the factors interacted, e.g. Darien weakened Scotland's bargaining position while the succession worried England, so each side had reasons to agree.

AO1 (5) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5) explanation using the second-order concept of cause. Levels of response.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains TWO or more reasons, with a sustained, well-supported analysis showing how the factors connect. Specific, accurate knowledge throughout.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains TWO reasons with accurate, specific supporting knowledge; explanation may be uneven or links limited.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Explains ONE reason fully, or identifies two with limited development.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies reasons with some relevant but generic or undeveloped knowledge.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): General statements about the Union with little accurate knowledge or little link to causes.
0 marks: no relevant content.

Within a level: bottom = borderline, middle = some inconsistency, top = consistent achievement.

Level 4 answers will typically explain, for example, that the Darien failure ruined many Scottish investors so Union with access to English trade and the Equivalent seemed attractive, AND that England needed a secure Protestant Hanoverian succession after the Act of Security threatened to restore a Stuart-linked Scotland.

N.B. The stimulus points need not be used; any other correct reason (e.g. war with France, trade benefits, political management of Scottish nobles) should be credited. Narrative of events without explicit link to why the Act passed is capped at Level 2. Indicative content exemplifies sophistication and is not exhaustive.

Planning outline.

Source A (supports, with a qualification): the merchant expects to double his money and owns shares in ships, so profit goes to investors. But the source also shows jobs for sailors, coopers, rope-makers and labourers at the port, which cuts against the claim. The bread price is unchanged and the quay workers look thin, so the gains for ordinary people are limited. Provenance: a private letter from a merchant, so candid, but from someone with a stake in the trade and writing of one port.

Source B (challenges): argues that imported tea, calico and tobacco reached ordinary shoppers, and that shopkeepers, carriers and dyers live by trade. This matches the rise of consumerism. Treat it with caution: a pamphlet by a writer on trade may be promoting commerce, and 'every market town' is probably exaggerated. It also praises the Company and the new banks, which suggests the author's viewpoint.

Source C (supports strongly, but about investment): shows directors escaping with money while clerks and families are ruined after the 1720 South Sea Bubble. It suggests that ordinary investors were harmed by empire-linked speculation, and that insiders gained. Caution: a satirical print, so it exaggerates, and it shows people who were rich enough to invest, not the poorest. Its date, 1720, makes it one event, not the whole period.

Own knowledge to use: Bank of England 1694 and growth of credit and national debt; East India Company trade in calicoes, tea and silk from India and China; end of the Royal African Company's monopoly in 1698, which let many more merchants trade; the slave-based plantation economy in the Caribbean and North America and the profits of Bristol, Liverpool and London; the growth of shipbuilding, ports and related trades; rising consumerism and the spread of coffee houses; the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht and the asiento giving Britain the right to supply enslaved people to Spanish colonies; the South Sea Bubble of 1719–20. Also note the counterpoint that cheap sugar and tobacco depended on enslaved labour, and that the most direct beneficiaries were investors, planters and merchants, while many people in Britain gained indirectly or not at all.

Judgement: the claim is largely but not wholly supported. The strongest answers weigh the sources against each other, use provenance, and reach a reasoned conclusion, for example that merchants and investors gained most, while ordinary people benefited from jobs and cheaper goods but remained exposed to risk and saw living costs barely change.

Total 25 marks: AO1 5, AO2 5, AO3 10, plus 5 SPaG. Levels of response for the 20-mark content (AO1 + AO2 + AO3).

Level 5 (17–20): Sustained, balanced judgement on how far the sources support the claim. Evaluates ALL THREE sources, using content and provenance (type, author, date, purpose) to judge their weight, and combines them with accurate, specific own knowledge to reach a supported conclusion.
Level 4 (13–16): Analyses the sources and uses them with relevant own knowledge to reach a judgement. Evaluation of the sources is clear but may be uneven. Some provenance is used.
Level 3 (9–12): Uses the sources to support and/or challenge the claim, with some relevant knowledge. Content is used, with limited evaluation. Judgement is stated but not fully supported.
Level 2 (5–8): Simple use of the sources, mostly by quoting or paraphrasing. Own knowledge is general or lacks links to the question. Limited or asserted judgement.
Level 1 (1–4): Basic comments on the sources or general statements about empire, with little relevance. No judgement.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Bottom of a level: borderline work. Middle: some inconsistency. Top: consistent achievement of the descriptors.

Nutshell lines: L5 'sustained judgement using all three sources and knowledge'; L4 'reasoned judgement using sources and knowledge'; L3 'uses sources with some knowledge'; L2 'simple use of sources'; L1 'basic comment'.

Level 4 answers will typically: argue that A and C support the claim, since the merchant expects to double his money and directors escape with coins, while B shows wider benefits through goods and trades. They will add knowledge such as the 1698 end of the Royal African Company monopoly, the Bank of England or the South Sea Bubble, and comment on provenance, for example that B is promotional or that C is satire.

Indicative content (illustrates sophistication, not a full model answer): Source A (profits for investors, jobs but no cheaper bread); Source B (consumer goods, trades, but promotional tone); Source C (insiders profit, ordinary investors ruined, satirical exaggeration); knowledge of East India Company trade, Royal African Company, slave-based economy, ports, Bank of England, Utrecht 1713, South Sea Bubble 1719–20, consumerism. Any other correct and relevant knowledge should be credited. One-sided or balanced responses may reach the top level provided they are sufficiently developed.

N.B. If the sources are misunderstood or knowledge is not linked to the claim, cap at Level 2. If only own knowledge is used, with no reference to the sources, cap at Level 2. If one source is ignored, cap at Level 4.

SPaG (5 marks, awarded separately): High performance 4–5 marks: spelling and punctuation consistently accurate, grammar well controlled, wide range of specialist terms used appropriately. Intermediate performance 2–3 marks: spelling and punctuation mostly accurate, reasonable control of grammar, a reasonable range of specialist terms. Threshold performance 1 mark: some accuracy in spelling and punctuation, basic control of meaning, limited use of specialist terms. No marks: writing too weak or the response does not relate to the question.

Plan: choose two or three reasons and explain each as a cause, linking each to Spitalfields specifically and to the site evidence.

Reason 1 - Huguenots, from the 1680s: Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, so French Protestants were persecuted and fled. Spitalfields lay just outside the City of London, so guild rules on who could trade were weaker. Many were skilled silk weavers, and silk weaving grew there. Evidence: tall houses with large upper-floor windows that gave light for looms, and Huguenot-built chapels.

Reason 2 - Jewish migrants, c.1880s-1914: Many fled violent persecution in the Russian Empire and Eastern Europe. Spitalfields offered cheap rented rooms, work in tailoring, cabinet-making and other small workshops, and was close to the docks where they arrived. Existing Jewish communities, synagogues and kosher shops made it easier to settle. The Aliens Act 1905 shows that the arrival of these migrants caused concern among some settled people.

Reason 3 - Bangladeshi migrants, c.1960s-1970s: Commonwealth migration after 1945 brought workers, mainly from Sylhet. Low-cost housing and jobs in the garment trade and restaurants drew them. Chain migration meant families and friends followed each other. After the 1971 war of independence more families settled.

Linking point: in each case Spitalfields combined cheap housing, work that suited the migrants' skills, and an established community. The same buildings were used again by different groups. The Brick Lane building that began as a Huguenot chapel and became a synagogue and later a mosque is one example.

A top-level answer explains at least two reasons in depth, uses specific evidence from the site, and links the reasons.

AO1 (5) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5) explanation of causes. Levels of response.

Level 5 (9-10 marks): Explains TWO or more reasons in a sustained, well-supported way, shows clear links between the reasons or an overall judgement, and uses precise specific knowledge. Top of level = consistently achieved; middle = some inconsistency; bottom = borderline.
Level 4 (7-8 marks): Explains TWO reasons with developed, accurate detail. Level 4 answers will typically explain why Huguenots and Jewish migrants chose Spitalfields, with specific evidence such as silk weaving, the position outside the City guilds, and cheap workshop housing.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): Explains ONE reason fully, or shows limited explanation of two reasons. Some accurate, relevant knowledge.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies reasons and gives some information about them, but explanation is limited or generic, e.g. 'they came for work'.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple statements about migration to London with little or no link to Spitalfields or the question.
0 marks: No relevant content.

Indicative content (illustrates sophistication, not a full model answer): Huguenots and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes 1685; silk weaving and the location outside the City's guild control; Eastern European Jewish migrants from the 1880s fleeing persecution, tailoring and workshop trades, cheap rooms, proximity to the docks; Bangladeshi migration from the 1960s-70s, garment work, chain migration, low-cost housing; buildings re-used by successive groups; existing communities and religious institutions as attractions.
Any other correct reason or example should also be credited, for example refugees from Ireland, if linked to Spitalfields.
N.B. Answers that only describe where groups came from, without explaining why they came to Spitalfields, cannot be placed above Level 2. Answers that explain only ONE reason cannot be placed above Level 3. Answers that give correct events outside the date range but ignore the question's focus on Spitalfields should be capped at Level 3.

Source A: content shows hostility from a settled resident. Claims: overcrowding, rising rents, undercutting of wages in the tailoring trade, demands for Parliament to limit numbers. This matches the context of Jewish immigration to Spitalfields from the 1880s, rising anti-immigrant feeling and the campaign that led to the Aliens Act 1905. Provenance: a contemporary letter to a newspaper, so a direct first-hand voice. Limitations: one shopkeeper, possibly with a trade interest; written to persuade; the polite disclaimer (nothing against them as individuals) may be a rhetorical device; it gives only the settled view, not the immigrants' view; it does not show any welcome or support (for example Jewish charities, or neighbours who got on with the newcomers).

Source B: content shows a building used successively by Huguenots (1743), Methodists, Jewish worshippers (1898) and Muslims (1976), and bilingual shop signs. It is useful as physical evidence of the area's migration history and of how the buildings were adapted, and of the long-term impact and acceptance of different groups. Provenance: a modern photograph by a historian, with a plaque that interprets the site; it is not contemporary, so it shows the outcome, not the reception at the time. It cannot show whether groups faced hostility on arrival, e.g. 18th-century weavers' riots or the 1970s National Front hostility, or how individuals felt.

Judgement: Source A is more directly useful for the question as set (reception), as it is a contemporary expression of hostility, though it is only one view. Source B is more useful for the overall pattern and impact, and so is less direct. Both judgements are creditable if supported by criteria such as relevance, provenance, typicality and what each omits.

AO3 (10 marks). Levels of response.

Level 5 (9-10): Evaluates BOTH sources in depth, using content, provenance and own knowledge of context, and reaches a sustained, supported judgement about which is more useful for how immigrants were received.
Level 4 (7-8): Evaluates both sources using content and provenance/context and reaches a judgement, with some imbalance or some unevenness in support.
Level 3 (5-6): Explains the usefulness of both sources, mainly from content, with some reference to provenance or knowledge; a judgement may be asserted or only partly supported.
Level 2 (3-4): Describes or explains ONE source in terms of usefulness, or both in a generic way (e.g. it is a letter so it is useful).
Level 1 (1-2): Simple statements about the sources, paraphrase or copying, with no real analysis of usefulness.
Level 0 (0): Nothing worthy of credit.

Within a level: bottom of level for borderline or very limited work; middle for some inconsistency; top for consistent achievement of the descriptors.

Indicative content:
- Level 4 answers will typically say that Source A is a contemporary letter written in 1902, at the height of Jewish immigration to Spitalfields and during the campaign for immigration controls (Aliens Act 1905), so it shows the hostility of some residents, but it is one shopkeeper's opinion and is written to persuade, so it may exaggerate.
- Level 4 answers will typically say that Source B shows a building used by Huguenots, Methodists, Jews and Muslims, and so is useful for the long-term impact and the pattern of settlement, but it is a modern photograph and plaque, so it does not show how the arrivals were received at the time.
- Level 5 answers will weigh the two against the specific enquiry (reception) and explain why one is more useful, for example by noting that Source B can show only the outcome while Source A shows attitudes directly, or by arguing that Source B shows eventual acceptance and so tempers the one-sided view in Source A.

N.B. Either source may be chosen as more useful; credit the quality of the reasoning. Answers that only evaluate one source cannot go beyond Level 2 for the evaluation of that source and are capped at Level 3 overall if the comparison is attempted. Answers that rely only on the information in the sources, with no knowledge of context, cannot reach Level 5. Answers that misunderstand the sources (e.g. think Source B shows hostility) are capped at Level 2. Any other valid contextual knowledge about Spitalfields should be credited.