2025 OCR GCSE History A (Explaining the Modern World) - J410 模擬試題連答案詳解

Possible points a strong answer could make:
1. Germany's reparations payments were rescheduled: payments started low and rose gradually as the German economy recovered, so Germany could realistically pay.
2. It followed the 1923 Ruhr occupation by France and Belgium, when Germany had failed to pay and hyperinflation had hit; the plan led to French and Belgian troops leaving the Ruhr (1925), reducing Franco-German hostility.
3. The USA lent Germany about 800 million gold marks, and further American loans followed. This stabilised the German currency and economy, which Germany used to pay reparations to Britain and France, who in turn repaid war debts to the USA.
4. Better economic conditions and a calmer atmosphere encouraged the Locarno Treaties of 1925 and Germany's entry to the League of Nations in 1926, with Stresemann, Briand and Chamberlain co-operating.
5. Overall, it showed that international disputes could be settled by negotiation rather than force.

AO1 (5 marks). Points marking: 1 mark for each valid point of knowledge about how the Dawes Plan improved relations, and a further mark for supporting development or detail, up to 5 marks in total. Two or three developed points can earn full marks; five undeveloped points can also earn full marks.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited):
- Reparations rescheduled to match Germany's ability to pay (1 mark); payments began low and increased as the economy recovered (development, 1 mark).
- French and Belgian troops withdrew from the Ruhr (1 mark); this ended a major source of Franco-German tension after 1923 (development, 1 mark).
- American loans to Germany (1 mark); about 800 million gold marks, helping recovery and allowing reparations to be paid to Britain and France (development, 1 mark).
- Created a calmer atmosphere in which Locarno 1925 and Germany joining the League in 1926 became possible (1 mark + development).

Accept: Charles Dawes, the American banker who led the committee; Stresemann's role in accepting the plan.
Reject / no credit: statements about the Young Plan (1929) or Versailles reparations figure alone with no link to the Dawes Plan; generic statements such as 'it made things better' without detail; material on events after 1929.
Note: Answers that describe only why the plan was needed (hyperinflation, Ruhr occupation) without showing how it improved relations should be credited only where the link is made.

A strong answer explains several causes and links them to the outcome.

1. Britain and France put self-interest first. They wanted Mussolini as a partner against Germany (the Stresa Front of 1935) and did not want to push Italy toward Hitler. Both were also weakened by the Depression and reluctant to risk war.

2. Sanctions were weak. Imposed in late 1935, they excluded oil, coal and steel, and the Suez Canal (controlled by Britain and France) stayed open to Italian ships, so Italy could keep supplying its army.

3. The Hoare-Laval Pact (December 1935) secretly proposed giving Italy most of Abyssinia. When it leaked there was public outrage and it was dropped, but it showed the League's leading members were not committed to defending a member state, and it damaged trust.

4. Structural weakness. The League had no army of its own and depended on members to act. Slow decision-making allowed Italy to advance. The USA was not a member and could trade with Italy; Japan and Germany had already left.

5. Outcome. Haile Selassie's appeal in 1936 was ignored, Italy annexed Abyssinia, sanctions were lifted in 1936, and the League lost credibility, encouraging Hitler and further aggression.

AO1 (5 marks): knowledge and understanding of the Abyssinian crisis and the League. AO2 (5 marks): explanation of causation. All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited.

Level 5 (9-10 marks) Nutshell: Developed, well-supported explanation of several causes with links between them. Analyses why the League failed using accurate, specific knowledge; reaches a supported overall line of reasoning. Bottom: just meets, some links less secure. Middle: mostly sustained. Top: consistently meets all descriptors.

Level 4 (7-8 marks) Nutshell: Explains at least two causes in detail with mostly accurate and relevant knowledge, some links between factors.

Level 3 (5-6 marks) Nutshell: Explains one cause well or two causes in a limited way; some accurate knowledge, explanation partly developed.

Level 2 (3-4 marks) Nutshell: Identifies causes with some relevant knowledge but mostly description; explanation limited or implicit.

Level 1 (1-2 marks) Nutshell: Simple or general statements about the League or Abyssinia with little accurate knowledge and no real explanation.

0 marks: no creditable response.

Capping: an answer that only describes events in sequence without explaining why the League failed should not go higher than Level 2. An answer explaining only one factor should not go higher than Level 3.

Indicative content: Britain and France's self-interest and fear of losing Italy as an ally against Germany; weak sanctions (no oil, Suez Canal open); Hoare-Laval Pact and its leak; no League army, slow procedures; absence of USA and departure of Germany and Japan; Depression and unwillingness to fight; outcome: conquest completed 1936, sanctions dropped, credibility lost.

Example threshold answer (Level 3): The League failed because Britain and France did not want to upset Mussolini. They wanted him on their side against Hitler. The League put sanctions on Italy but these did not include oil, so Italy could keep fighting. The Hoare-Laval Pact planned to give Italy most of Abyssinia, which showed Britain and France did not really want to stop Mussolini. So Italy won and the League looked weak.

Model approach (threshold-plus candidate voice):

1. Interpretation A: it argues appeasement was weak, repeated surrender that encouraged Hitler. This was written in 1946, just after the war, when the human cost of Hitler's rise was fresh and writers looked for those who had let him grow strong. This explains its harsh tone and its focus on 'failure of nerve'.

2. Support from knowledge: Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles by rearmament in 1935 and by marching into the Rhineland in 1936 with little response. Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 passed without action. At Munich in September 1938 Britain and France agreed to the handing over of the Sudetenland without Czech involvement; Hitler then occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, showing that 'the last prize' was not the last. The guarantee to Poland came only after that.

3. Other interpretations: later historians, writing once records were opened up and after the Cold War began, argued that Chamberlain and others had few choices. Britain was still recovering from the Depression and its rearmament was incomplete; the public strongly remembered the First World War and wanted peace; the Dominions did not want war; the forces were stretched across the Empire; and France would not act alone. Some argue Munich bought time to build up fighters and radar. Other views (post-1990) stress that appeasement was a rational and popular policy with the information available, while others still say that it was too fearful of communism and so left Stalin out. These challenge A's claim that it was simply cowardice.

4. Judgement: A is fair in saying that concessions did not satisfy Hitler and that earlier firmness (e.g. at the Rhineland, when Germany's army was weak) might have been cheaper. It is less fair in treating appeasement as a single failure of will, ignoring public opinion, rearmament and the lack of allies, and by treating 'chances thrown away' as obvious when it was only clear later. Overall it is a partly fair comment, shaped by its date.

SPaG: up to 5 marks for accurate spelling, punctuation and grammar and the use of terms such as appeasement, rearmament, Anschluss, Sudetenland, guarantee.

AO1 5, AO2 5, AO4 10, SPaG 5 = 25 marks.

LEVEL DESCRIPTORS (20 marks for the question, plus SPaG)
Level 5 (17-20) Nutshell: Evaluates A in the light of other interpretations and detailed knowledge to reach a sustained, supported judgement. Considers how and why the interpretations differ, including the effect of when they were written. Knowledge is accurate and wide-ranging and is used to test A. Reaches a clear, balanced judgement.
Level 4 (13-16) Nutshell: Analyses A and other interpretations with sound knowledge and reaches a judgement, but with less depth on why views differ. Both support and challenge for A are explained, but the evaluation is less developed.
Level 3 (9-12) Nutshell: Explains how far A is supported or challenged, using some other interpretations and knowledge, but with limited judgement. Comments on A's argument but may treat interpretations as separate points.
Level 2 (5-8) Nutshell: Identifies features of A and/or other views, with some knowledge, but largely describes or asserts. Little or no use of other interpretations.
Level 1 (1-4) Nutshell: Simple, general comment on A with little relevant knowledge or reference to other views.
0: No creditable response.

Within each level: top mark = consistently meets the descriptors; middle = meets most with some inconsistency; bottom = borderline / just enough. Cap at Level 3 if the answer gives no judgement about how fair A is or does not use any other interpretation. Cap at Level 2 if only knowledge is given with no reference to A.

INDICATIVE CONTENT (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited)
Support for A: concessions over rearmament 1935, Rhineland 1936, Anschluss 1938, Munich 1938; Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia March 1939 showed that promises were broken; the League of Nations and Stresa Front weakened by lack of firm response; Poland guarantee came late; the democracies appeared weak.
Challenge to A: public opinion and memory of 1914-18; economic limits after the Depression; incomplete rearmament and time bought in 1938; lack of support from France, the Dominions and the USA; fear of communism; Chamberlain's belief that Hitler's Versailles grievances were partly justified; some historians argue that appeasement was realistic.
Why views differ: A was written in 1946 after the war's outcome was known and when blame was sought; later work used government records, and post-1990 evidence, and offered less moralising judgements.
Judgement: partly fair; reward any reasoned conclusion supported by evidence.

SPaG (5 marks): Threshold performance (1 mark) - spelling and punctuation reasonably accurate, some control of meaning, limited specialist terms. Intermediate performance (2-3 marks) - considerable accuracy, clear meaning, a good range of specialist terms used appropriately. High performance (4-5 marks) - consistent accuracy, effective control of meaning, wide range of specialist terms used with precision. No marks if the response is not related to the question.

Plan: (1) Identify what A argues: appeasement was weak, foolish and encouraged Hitler. Support from knowledge: Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland in 1936 and achieved Anschluss in March 1938 without a fight; the Munich Agreement of September 1938 gave him the Sudetenland, and in March 1939 he occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, breaking the promises he had made at Munich. (2) Explain why others disagree, using B: B sees constraints, so the policy was reasonable. Knowledge: Britain's economy was damaged by the Depression; the Treasury was reluctant to fund large rearmament; the public remembered the First World War and supported the League and disarmament; the Dominions did not want war over Czechoslovakia; France would not act without Britain; the Chiefs of Staff warned in 1938 that Britain was not ready. (3) Use C: newly available government papers show purpose and planning, such as rearmament programmes including radar and fighter production, which helped in 1940. Also criticises the aim and the failure to ally with the USSR, so C partly agrees with A but is more balanced. (4) Explain the reasons for difference: date and circumstances of writing (A is written in the shock of 1940 and wants to blame, with hindsight; B is written during the Cold War when some historians wanted to defend the leaders and recognised the pressures they faced; C benefits from archives opened under the thirty-year rule and from distance), the type of evidence used, the purpose and audience (newspaper vs textbook vs article), and the emphasis historians give to motives, outcomes or alternatives. (5) Reach a judgement: the disagreement is real, but it comes mainly from different evidence, time and purpose rather than from disputes about facts, since all agree that Hitler was not stopped. SPaG: reward accurate spelling and punctuation, clear grammar and use of terms such as appeasement, rearmament, concession, hindsight, Dominion, interpretation.

Total 25 marks: 20 for the explanation (AO4, analysing and evaluating interpretations including why they differ, supported by AO1 knowledge) plus 5 for SPaG. All content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited.

Level 5 (17-20 marks) Nutshell: Explains why the interpretations differ, using all the interpretations and well-selected own knowledge, and reaches a supported judgement.
- Bottom: borderline, covers most of the descriptors but with a slight imbalance between A, B and C. Middle: sustained explanation of at least two reasons for difference with developed support. Top: consistently meets, with a judgement on the nature of the differences.
- Explains in detail that interpretations differ because of the circumstances in which they were written, the evidence available, the purpose and the weight given to factors, and supports each with precise knowledge.

Level 4 (13-16 marks) Nutshell: Explains differences with support from the interpretations and knowledge, but the explanation is not fully sustained or one interpretation is underused.

Level 3 (9-12 marks) Nutshell: Identifies and explains some differences between the interpretations, with some relevant knowledge, but explanation of why historians differ is limited or partly descriptive.

Level 2 (5-8 marks) Nutshell: Identifies differences in the interpretations with limited support. Answers that only describe what A, B and C say, with no reference to why they differ, should not go higher than Level 2.

Level 1 (1-4 marks) Nutshell: Simple statements about the interpretations or about appeasement with little or no link to the question.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content (any other valid points should be credited):
- Interpretation A: written in 1940 with the fall of France fresh; wartime guilt and blame; hindsight. Support: Rhineland 1936, Anschluss 1938, Munich 1938, Prague March 1939 showing that concessions did not stop Hitler.
- Interpretation B: written in 1961; stresses constraints on Britain: Depression, small armed forces, public opinion, Dominions, France. Knowledge of Chiefs of Staff warnings in 1938 and the limits of rearmament.
- Interpretation C: 2005; uses archive papers; rearmament and buying time; recognises the unrealistic aim and the missed Soviet alliance (Nazi-Soviet Pact 1939).
- Reasons for difference: date of writing, available evidence, purpose and audience, emphasis on motives versus results, influence of events such as the Second World War and the Cold War.
- Candidates may agree partly with A (for example on the outcome) while explaining that it ignores context.

Capping: an answer that does not use own knowledge should not go higher than Level 3. An answer that does not use Interpretations B and C should be capped at Level 3.

SPaG (5 marks, awarded in addition):
- High performance (4-5 marks): spelling and punctuation consistently accurate, grammar controlled, wide and accurate use of specialist terms (for example appeasement, rearmament, interpretation, hindsight).
- Intermediate performance (2-3 marks): spelling and punctuation reasonably accurate, some control of meaning, adequate use of specialist terms.
- Threshold performance (1 mark): spelling and punctuation accurate in places, basic meaning clear, limited use of specialist terms.
- 0 marks: no writing, or errors prevent meaning, or the response is not worthy of credit.

Example threshold answer: Interpretation A says appeasement was weak and foolish because it was written in 1940 when Britain was at war and the writer is angry. Interpretation B disagrees because it says Britain was not ready for war and the people did not want one, which was true because of the Depression. Interpretation C was written later and the writer had new papers which show that Britain used the time to build planes, so it is more balanced. So historians differ because they wrote at different times and had different evidence.

Candidates need to identify one valid example of a government attempt to change women's position, then add a supporting detail. Example: the 1950 Marriage Law (1 mark) outlawed arranged and forced marriages and gave women the right to ask for a divorce (1 mark for development). Other valid examples: women being encouraged to work outside the home in factories and on collectives during the First Five Year Plan and Great Leap Forward; the creation of the All-China Democratic Women's Federation to promote women's interests; communal canteens and nurseries in the people's communes, set up to free women for farm labour; women being given land in their own name during land reform.

AO1 (2 marks). Points marking: 1 mark for identifying a valid example; a second mark for supporting detail or development of that example. Two separate correct examples with no development can also earn full marks (1 + 1).

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited):
- 1950 Marriage Law: banned arranged marriages, concubinage and bride-price; allowed women to choose a partner and to seek divorce.
- Women given equal rights to own land during land reform (from 1950).
- Women encouraged to take paid work in factories and on collective farms; the Five Year Plan needed labour.
- Communal canteens, nurseries and childcare in communes in the Great Leap Forward, freeing women to work.
- Women's Federation set up to promote the Party's policies among women.

Do not credit: vague statements such as 'women were treated better' or 'women got more rights' with no specific example; examples from outside 1950-1965 (for example the One Child Policy, 1979 onwards).

A strong answer explains at least three causes and links them to the 1950-1953 context.

1. Winning peasant support: the Communists had won the civil war largely with peasant backing. The Agrarian Reform Law (1950) redistributed land from landlords and richer peasants to poor and landless peasants, roughly 40-45% of farmland changing hands. This rewarded supporters and tied the peasantry to the new regime.

2. Removing the landlords: landlords held local wealth, status and influence and could have been a focus of opposition. Peasants were encouraged to hold 'speak bitterness' meetings and public trials; many landlords were killed (estimates run to hundreds of thousands or more) or lost their property. This ended the old rural elite and showed the new government's power.

3. Ideology and Party control: land reform fitted Communist aims of ending class inequality and feudal landholding. Involving peasants in denouncing landlords made them complicit in the revolution and let Party cadres establish control in villages that the state had previously barely reached.

4. Economic reasons: redistribution aimed to raise rural production and rural living standards after years of war, helping to feed growing cities and to prepare for the First Five Year Plan (1953) and later collectivisation, which would rely on agricultural surplus.

A top answer would also link the causes, for example showing that political and economic aims reinforced each other.

AO1 (5 marks): knowledge and understanding of land reform 1950-1953. AO2 (5 marks): explanation of causation. Level of response; all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited.

Level 5 (9-10): Explains several causes in a sustained, well-supported analysis with accurate, specific knowledge and clear links between causes (e.g. political control and economic aims). Top: consistently meets; middle: mostly meets; bottom: borderline. Nutshell: a developed, connected explanation of causes.

Level 4 (7-8): Explains at least two causes with accurate, relevant knowledge; analysis is clear but links are limited. Nutshell: two or more causes well explained.

Level 3 (5-6): Explains one cause fully and identifies others, or explains two with only some development; knowledge is mostly accurate. Nutshell: one explained cause plus more.

Level 2 (3-4): Identifies causes with some description, limited explanation of why; knowledge is general. Nutshell: some description, little explanation.

Level 1 (1-2): Simple or generalised statements about land reform; little accurate knowledge. Nutshell: basic statements.

Level 0 (0): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content: Agrarian Reform Law 1950; redistribution to poor and landless peasants; reward for civil war support; elimination of landlords through speak-bitterness meetings and people's tribunals; violence and killings; Party control in villages through cadres; ideology of ending feudal landholding; raising food output to support industrialisation and the First Five Year Plan; preparing for later collectivisation.

Capping: an answer which covers only the stimulus points without own knowledge should not go higher than Level 3. An answer that only describes how land reform was carried out, with no causes, should not go higher than Level 2. Narrative that strays outside 1950-1953 without relevance should be credited only for relevant content.

Example threshold response (Level 3): 'The Communists did land reform because the peasants had helped them win the civil war and they wanted to reward them. Land was taken from landlords and given to poor peasants. This made the peasants support the government. Also the Communists did not like landlords because they were rich and had power in the villages, so they held trials and many were killed. This got rid of anyone who might oppose them.'

Purpose: to encourage and reassure. The source is from the Party's own newspaper, so it speaks for the leadership. Content and tone: it flatters the Party's strength ('strong enough to listen'), names specific groups (teachers, doctors, writers), and promises safety ('nothing to fear'). Context: in 1956-57 Mao wanted intellectuals to criticise cadres who had become bureaucratic, and hoped that this would win the support of educated people for the regime and its economic plans after the First Five Year Plan. Many intellectuals stayed silent through distrust after the earlier purges and campaigns, so the press was used to coax them into speaking. Once criticism went as far as questioning Party rule itself (from June 1957), the campaign was ended and critics were targeted in the Anti-Rightist Campaign, which suggests the editorial may also have been a way to expose those with views hostile to the Party. A strong answer links the purpose to the content, tone and context of the source rather than just describing it.

AO3: 5 marks. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Takes the source at face value or describes its content, or gives a generalised purpose with little support (e.g. 'to tell people to criticise'). Nutshell: Describes the source. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Identifies a purpose (e.g. to encourage intellectuals to speak out, to reassure them) and supports it from the content or tone of the source OR from the context. Nutshell: Purpose supported from one angle. Level 3 (5 marks): Explains a purpose with support from both the source (content, tone, language such as 'nothing to fear', 'strong enough to listen', the Party newspaper as the author) and knowledge of context (Hundred Flowers campaign 1956-57; Mao's wish to criticise bureaucratic cadres; intellectuals' distrust after earlier purges; later Anti-Rightist Campaign and possible aim of exposing critics). Nutshell: Purpose explained using source and context. Within a level: bottom/middle/top marks for borderline, just meets, consistently meets. Answers that only evaluate reliability should not go higher than Level 1. All content is indicative only and any other valid points should be credited. Example threshold answer (Level 3): 'This was published to make intellectuals feel safe about criticising the Party. It says the country is strong enough to listen and people have nothing to fear, and it is in a Party paper so it speaks for the leadership. In 1957 Mao ran the Hundred Flowers campaign because he wanted criticism of lazy officials, but intellectuals were scared after earlier purges. So the editorial was trying to persuade them to speak. It may also have been to find out who opposed the Party, as afterwards critics were punished in the Anti-Rightist Campaign.'

Plan: (1) Provenance: written by a Party secretary for the county committee in 1958, so an official report with a motive to please superiors. (2) Content/tone: extreme claims ('more than double', 'child could stand on the stalks'), slogans, praise of Mao, and confident prediction of further success read as propaganda. (3) Context: in 1958 local cadres competed to report huge harvests, because officials who admitted shortfalls risked being accused of being rightists. Exaggerated figures led the state to take too much grain, and peasants diverted from farming to backyard steel meant crops were left unharvested. The steel was of poor quality. Famine followed in 1959-61. (4) Judgement: reliable as evidence of what officials claimed and of the policies in operation, not as evidence of actual success.

Example threshold answer: 'This source is not very reliable. It was written by a Party secretary to the county committee, so he wanted to make his commune look good and show he supported Mao. The claims are too good to be true, like a child standing on rice stalks, and it sounds like propaganda. In 1958 officials did exaggerate harvests because they were afraid of being punished if they did not meet targets, and later there was a famine, so the real harvest was not doubled. It is useful for showing what officials said but not for showing the Great Leap Forward was a success.'

AO3: 5 marks. Level of response (3 levels).

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Reaches a supported judgement on reliability by analysing the source in context, using provenance, content/tone AND relevant knowledge of 1958 together. Top of level (5): consistently evaluates and weighs the factors, e.g. recognising limited value as evidence of what officials claimed, but not of real output. Bottom of level (4): judgement is supported but one strand is thinner or the weighing is less secure.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Makes valid points on reliability using source content, provenance or knowledge, but treats them separately or only partly applies them to the question; judgement may be asserted. Top (3): two strands used with some explanation. Bottom (2): one strand developed or several points undeveloped.
Level 1 (1 mark): Simple, general comment on the source or on reliability (e.g. 'it was written by an official so might be biased'), with little or no use of the source or context.
Nutshell: L1 = simple comment; L2 = some valid evaluation, not integrated; L3 = integrated, supported judgement.
No marks for description or paraphrase of the source alone. Answers that dismiss the source solely because it is propaganda, without explaining why that matters for the 1958 question, should not go higher than Level 2.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct points should also be credited):
- Provenance: Party secretary, report to county committee, autumn 1958, so an official report with motive to please; loyalty to Mao stressed.
- Content/tone: implausible claims; slogans; confident predictions; no mention of problems; only positive peasant comment.
- Context: pressure to meet targets and fear of being labelled rightist led to inflated figures; backyard furnaces produced poor steel; labour diverted from harvest; communal canteens wasted food; grain requisitioned on false figures; famine from 1959.
- Value: shows what officials reported and the policies in operation (communes, canteens, backyard furnaces, end of private plots).
Useful answers may argue the source is reliable about methods but unreliable about outcomes.

Plan: (1) Agree - commune organisation. By 1958 farms were merged into very large communes of thousands of households. Private plots and animals were taken away and meals were eaten in communal canteens, which wasted food and removed the incentive to work. Labour was moved from the fields to backyard steel furnaces, which produced poor-quality iron, so crops were left unharvested. Local officials had little farming expertise. (2) Other reasons: unrealistic targets set by Mao and the Party; officials exaggerated grain output to look successful, so the state took too much grain from the countryside and left peasants short; bad weather, floods and drought in 1959-61 made shortages worse; the Soviet Union withdrew advisers and support from 1960 after the Sino-Soviet split; Mao's refusal to accept criticism (e.g. Peng Dehuai was purged in 1959) stopped policy from being corrected. Famine followed, killing millions. (3) Judgement: the commune system was the means by which the policy was applied, but the real driver was political pressure from above, so organisation was very important but not the only main reason. Weather and Soviet withdrawal made things worse but did not cause the disaster alone. A good conclusion weighs these and reaches a clear verdict.

AO1 (7 marks): knowledge and understanding of the Great Leap Forward, communes and the reasons for failure. AO2 (11 marks): analysis and evaluation of causes and of how far the statement is true. Total 18.

Level 5 (16-18): Sustained, balanced analysis of commune organisation and at least two other factors, with accurate and specific knowledge. Reaches a fully supported judgement that weighs the relative importance of the factors and shows links between them. Top of level: judgement is consistently justified; middle: slight inconsistency in evaluation; bottom: judgement is supported but only just sustained.
Level 4 (12-15): Analyses commune organisation and other factors with mostly accurate knowledge. A judgement is reached and supported but weighing is limited or not fully developed.
Level 3 (8-11): Explains some reasons, probably one side more fully than the other. Knowledge is accurate but may be general. Judgement is stated but weakly supported. Should not go higher than Level 3 if only one side (agree or disagree) is covered.
Level 2 (4-7): Describes the Great Leap Forward with some relevant points. Limited explanation, little or no judgement. Capped at this level if the answer is mainly narrative of events.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple or generalised statements with little accurate knowledge and no link to the question.
0: No creditable content.

Nutshell: L1 simple statements; L2 describes; L3 explains one side; L4 balanced with a judgement; L5 sustained, weighed judgement.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited):
Agree: large communes; abolition of private plots; communal canteens and waste; backyard furnaces diverting labour; local cadres inexperienced; unrealistic collective targets.
Disagree/other factors: Mao's targets and political pressure; exaggerated reports of output and excessive grain requisition; floods and drought 1959-61; withdrawal of Soviet advisers 1960; suppression of criticism (Peng Dehuai, Lushan 1959); famine consequences.
Judgement: e.g. organisation was a major cause but was driven by political decisions, so the statement is only partly correct.

Example threshold answer (Level 3): I partly agree. The communes were very big and people had to eat in canteens and lost their own land, so they did not work hard and food was wasted. Backyard furnaces also meant crops were not picked. But Mao set targets that were too high and officials lied about how much grain they produced, so the government took too much food. There were also floods and the USSR took its help away. So communes were important but not the only reason.

Choose two different challenges and give a point plus development for each. Example answer: One way was Magna Carta in 1215. Barons were angry that John demanded heavy taxes and had lost land in France, so they rebelled, captured London and forced him to agree to Magna Carta, which said he could not raise certain taxes without the agreement of his barons. A second way was the Provisions of Oxford in 1258. Barons led by Simon de Montfort were unhappy with Henry III's spending and his foreign favourites, so they made him accept a council of barons to control his government. When Henry later rejected this, de Montfort fought and defeated him at Lewes in 1264.

AO1 (4 marks). Points marking: for each of two examples, 1 mark for a correct identification of a way the king was challenged and 1 further mark for relevant supporting development (specific detail, date, person or consequence). Maximum 2 marks per example. Two different examples are required; a repeat of the same example earns no extra credit. Examples must fall within 1199-1307.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited): the baronial rebellion against John and Magna Carta 1215 (limits on taxation, no imprisonment without lawful judgement, council of 25 barons to enforce it, First Barons' War); the Provisions of Oxford 1258 and the Provisions of Westminster 1259 (council of fifteen, regular parliaments); Simon de Montfort's victory at Lewes 1264, capture of Henry III and the 1265 parliament including knights and burgesses; defeat and death of de Montfort at Evesham 1265; baronial and clerical pressure on Edward I over taxation, e.g. the Confirmation of the Charters 1297.

Accept: a correct but undeveloped example = 1 mark. Reject: examples outside the date range (e.g. Peasants' Revolt 1381, Richard II's deposition 1399), or vague statements such as 'barons did not like the king' with no specific challenge.

A strong answer explains several linked causes.

1. Richard's style of kingship: he stressed royal authority and surrounded himself with favourites. In 1387-88 the Lords Appellant defeated his friends and removed them. In 1397 Richard took revenge, executing or exiling several of the Appellants. Many nobles then felt that none of them was safe.

2. Treatment of Bolingbroke: in 1398 Richard exiled Henry Bolingbroke after a quarrel with Thomas Mowbray was stopped. When John of Gaunt died in 1399, Richard took the Lancaster lands rather than let Bolingbroke inherit them. This threatened the property rights on which all landowners relied, and gave Bolingbroke a personal reason to act.

3. Opportunity: Richard went to Ireland in 1399 with many of his supporters. Bolingbroke landed in Yorkshire, claiming only his inheritance, and attracted supporters such as the Percys. Richard had no strong army at home, and his support melted away.

4. Result: Richard was captured, forced to abdicate, and Parliament accepted Bolingbroke as Henry IV. Richard's own actions made the nobility willing to accept this.

The linking point: Richard's tyranny created the discontent, the Lancaster seizure supplied a leader, and the Irish expedition supplied the chance.

AO1 4 marks (knowledge and understanding); AO2 4 marks (explanation of cause). Level of response, 8 marks. Indicative content only; any other correct reasons should be credited.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Nutshell - a simple statement. Makes one or two general or limited points about Richard (e.g. 'he was unpopular') with little or no detail. Bottom: one basic point. Top: two points or one with some accurate detail.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Nutshell - describes causes. Gives accurate, relevant knowledge of one or two causes (e.g. the Appellants, the exile of Bolingbroke) but explanation of why they led to deposition is partial or the causes are described rather than linked. Bottom (3): one cause with detail. Middle (4): two causes, limited explanation. Top (5): two causes explained, or three described.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Nutshell - explains and links causes. Accurate, detailed knowledge; at least two causes explained in terms of why Richard lost his throne, with links between them (e.g. the seizure of Lancaster lands turned Bolingbroke into a leader, and the Irish expedition gave him a chance). Bottom (6): two causes explained with some links. Middle (7): three causes explained, mostly linked. Top (8): sustained, linked explanation showing how the causes combined.

Indicative content: Richard's belief in royal authority and favourites; Lords Appellant 1387-88 and Richard's revenge in 1397; exile of Bolingbroke 1398; seizure of Lancaster inheritance 1399; Irish expedition and Bolingbroke's landing at Ravenspur; support from the Percys and others; Richard's capture and abdication, Parliament's acceptance of Henry IV.

Capping: an answer with no explanation of Richard's loss of the throne (narrative only) should not go higher than Level 2. Accept the spelling variants of names. Do not credit events after 1399.

Plan: define significance (immediate impact, lasting impact, breadth of impact), then weigh de Montfort against other factors.

For significance: (1) Provisions of Oxford 1258 placed Henry III under the control of a baronial council and required Parliaments to be held regularly, three times a year, showing that the king's power could be limited. De Montfort was a leading figure in the reform movement and later led it after 1263. (2) After defeating Henry at Lewes in 1264 he ruled in the king's name, and in 1265 his Parliament included two knights from each shire and two burgesses from chosen towns, so for the first time townspeople were called, widening the political community. (3) Edward I's model later drew on this idea.

Against: (1) De Montfort's Parliament was called partly to win support for a regime that lacked legitimacy; it was not a settled constitutional change. (2) He was killed at Evesham in August 1265 and his supporters were defeated, so his own system collapsed. (3) Parliaments did not depend on him: earlier great councils existed and Magna Carta 1215 had already established the idea of consent for taxation. (4) Edward I made the real difference: constant war needed money, and the Model Parliament of 1295 summoned clergy, barons, knights and burgesses so that taxes could be granted with wide consent. By 1307 Parliament was regular, though still summoned at the king's will.

Judgement: de Montfort was significant in the short run and as a precedent, but the lasting establishment of Parliament owed more to the financial and military needs of the Crown, particularly under Edward I.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 6 marks; AO2 (second-order concept of significance, analysis and judgement) 8 marks. Total 14.

Level 5 (13-14): Sustained, well-supported analysis of de Montfort's significance AND other factors (e.g. Edward I, taxation, Magna Carta), reaching a clear, reasoned judgement that weighs short-term against long-term significance. Accurate, detailed knowledge. Nutshell: a balanced, supported judgement on significance.
Level 4 (10-12): Analysis of de Montfort and at least one other factor with developed knowledge and a judgement that is supported but not fully weighed. Nutshell: good analysis, judgement partly supported.
Level 3 (7-9): Explains some ways de Montfort was or was not significant with relevant knowledge; judgement asserted or limited. Nutshell: some explanation, limited judgement.
Level 2 (4-6): Descriptive or general answer with some relevant knowledge and limited links to significance. Nutshell: description with some relevance.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, undeveloped statements with limited accurate knowledge. Nutshell: basic points.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom mark = borderline/just enough; middle = meets the descriptor with some inconsistency; top = consistently meets the descriptor. Answers that deal with only one side, or give no judgement, should not go higher than Level 3. Answers with no precise knowledge are capped at Level 2.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited): Provisions of Oxford 1258 and regular Parliaments; baronial rebellion and Battle of Lewes 1264; 1265 Parliament including knights and burgesses; death at Evesham 1265; Edward I's need for taxation and consent; Model Parliament 1295; Magna Carta 1215 as earlier background; Parliament remaining dependent on the Crown by 1307.

Plan: set force against other pressures, then reach a judgement on 'only'.

For the statement: In 1215 the rebel barons seized London and forced John to seal Magna Carta, which limited arbitrary taxation and imprisonment. In 1258 baronial pressure produced the Provisions of Oxford, and when Henry III ignored them, Simon de Montfort fought and won at Lewes (1264). In 1265 his Parliament included knights and burgesses, but this rested on military victory and ended at Evesham. In 1399 Henry Bolingbroke returned with an army, Richard II was forced to give up the throne and Parliament accepted Henry IV. Richard's rule had been criticised for ignoring advisers, and the Lords Appellant had used force against him in 1387-88. In the Wars of the Roses (1455-85) the crown changed hands several times by battle (e.g. Towton 1461, Bosworth 1485).

Against the statement: Magna Carta was reissued in 1216, 1217 and 1225 without a battle, as a way of buying support. Kings needed taxation, especially for war, so they called Parliament and agreed to hear grievances (Henry III, Edward I's Model Parliament of 1295). Edward I used Parliament to approve taxes and pass statutes, so it became useful to the crown. Custom, the coronation oath and the Church's advice also restrained kings. Some changes were influenced by the threat of force rather than actual fighting, and by the need to keep noble support, for example Edward II and the Ordinances of 1311.

Judgement: Force or its threat was the main trigger of the biggest changes (1215, 1265, 1399), but 'only' ignores money, the usefulness of consultation and legal custom, which kept change going once the fighting stopped. So I agree only partly.

Threshold candidate voice: 'I partly agree. In 1215 John signed Magna Carta because the barons had taken London. But later kings like Edward I called Parliament because they needed taxes, not because they were forced. So force was important but not the only reason.'

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 8 marks; AO2 (analysis using second-order concepts, here cause and change) 16 marks. Total 24. Level-of-response marking: 5 levels, with the mark chosen as bottom, middle or top of the level (borderline, just enough/slight inconsistency, consistently meets).

Level 5 (21-24) Nutshell: sustained, well-supported judgement. Detailed, accurate knowledge across the period; consistent analysis of force against other factors; a clear, reasoned conclusion about 'only'.
Level 4 (16-20) Nutshell: developed analysis on both sides. Accurate, relevant knowledge; explains both sides but judgement or balance is slightly uneven.
Level 3 (11-15) Nutshell: some explanation of both sides. Relevant knowledge with some analysis; judgement is stated but weakly supported. Mostly one-sided answers should not go higher than Level 3.
Level 2 (6-10) Nutshell: descriptive with some links. Accurate but generalised knowledge; limited explanation of how kings changed.
Level 1 (1-5) Nutshell: simple statements. Isolated, basic facts with little link to the question.
Level 0 (0): nothing creditable.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited):
Agree: 1215 barons seize London, John seals Magna Carta; 1258 Provisions of Oxford and 1264-65 de Montfort's rebellion, Lewes, Parliament of 1265; Lords Appellant 1387-88; Henry Bolingbroke's invasion and Richard II's deposition 1399; Wars of the Roses, Towton, Bosworth; threat of force behind the Ordinances of 1311.
Disagree: reissues of Magna Carta 1216-1225 made without battle; kings' need for taxes led to Parliament (Henry III, Edward I 1295); Parliament became useful for approving laws and taxes; custom, coronation oath and the Church; advisers and councils; pressure through refusal of taxes.
Judgement: credit any reasoned view, but answers that accept 'only' without considering other factors should not go above Level 3. Answers that just list events without linking them to changes in how kings ruled are capped at Level 2.
The stimulus bullet points are optional; candidates must use own knowledge too, and answers using only the bullets are capped at Level 3.

Plan: choose three or four causes, explain each and link it to criticism by ordinary people.

1. Wealth and behaviour of the Church. In c.1520 the Church owned about a quarter of the land in England and collected tithes from every household. Many people thought bishops and abbots lived in luxury while parish priests were poor. Complaints about pluralism (one clergyman holding several livings) and absenteeism, and about clergy who were poorly educated, made the Church seem more interested in money than in caring for souls.

2. Church courts and fees. Church courts dealt with wills, marriage and morals, and charged fees. The case of Richard Hunne (1514-15), who died in a bishop's prison after refusing to pay a burial fee, became a symbol of clerical abuse and made Londoners angry. Mortuary fees and tithes were resented by laypeople.

3. New ideas. Lollard beliefs, which had survived in secret communities, rejected pilgrimages, images and the special power of priests. From the 1520s Luther's ideas, and Tyndale's English New Testament, arrived through merchants and printed books and were discussed in places such as London and the university at Cambridge. They taught that salvation came through faith and the Bible, which made the Church's role as intermediary look unnecessary.

4. Political encouragement. When the Reformation Parliament met in 1529, MPs were allowed to voice anti-clerical complaints, and the Commons' petition against the clergy and Acts limiting fees (1529) gave criticism official backing. This made it safer to speak out.

Judgement: the wealth and abuses created the resentment, but new ideas and the Crown's attitude turned it into widespread criticism. However, many people still remained loyal to traditional religion, so criticism was not universal.

Words such as 'tithes', 'pluralism' and 'anti-clericalism' show specialist vocabulary.

AO1 5 marks: knowledge and understanding of the English Reformation c.1520-c.1535. AO2 5 marks: explanation and analysis of causation.

Level 5 (9-10 marks) Nutshell: sustained, well-supported explanation of several causes with an analysis of how they link. Top: consistently meets; middle: reaches a judgement on relative importance with accurate detail; bottom: borderline, explanation of links is less consistent.
Level 4 (7-8 marks) Nutshell: developed explanation of at least two causes with accurate, specific knowledge, but little linking between factors.
Level 3 (5-6 marks) Nutshell: explains one cause well or two causes in a limited way, with some accurate knowledge. Answers that explain only one cause should not go higher than Level 3.
Level 2 (3-4 marks) Nutshell: identifies causes with some support but little explanation of why they led to criticism.
Level 1 (1-2 marks) Nutshell: general or vague statements about the Church with little relevant knowledge.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited): Church wealth and land, tithes and fees; clerical abuses (pluralism, absenteeism, poor education); Church courts and the Richard Hunne case 1514-15; Lollard survival; Luther's ideas and Tyndale's New Testament in English; humanist criticism; role of the Reformation Parliament 1529 and the Commons' complaints; Henry VIII's own interest. Credit the background of Henry VIII's annulment only as supporting knowledge; do not reward detailed narrative of the break with Rome.

Example threshold answer (Level 2-3): The Church was criticised because it was very rich. It owned lots of land and took tithes from people, but many priests were not well educated and some had several jobs. People also read new ideas from Luther that said the Bible was more important than priests. This made people question the Church.

Plan for a strong answer (about 45 minutes).

Source A: Supports the statement. The commissioner reports a neglectful prior, ruined church fabric, poorly educated monks and townsfolk who would prefer the land to be used otherwise. This fits the Valor Ecclesiasticus and the Visitation of 1535-36, which Cromwell used to justify the Act of 1536 closing houses worth under £200 a year. But the provenance matters: the commissioner was working for Cromwell and was expected to find faults, so the evidence may be selective. The source also undermines the claim, as the almsmen at the gate were sorrowful, showing that the poor depended on the monks.

Source B: Contradicts the statement. The petition comes from the Lincolnshire Rising and the Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536-37. It stresses charity, hospitality, employment and prayers for the dead (the role of the monasteries in the community). Context: tens of thousands rose, which suggests widespread opposition in the north. Caution: the petition blames 'ill-chosen advisers' rather than Henry VIII, and it mixes the dissolution with other grievances (taxes, religious change, Cromwell). It speaks for the north, not the whole of England. The rising was defeated and its leaders such as Robert Aske were executed.

Source C: Mixed. A landowner profited from the sale of monastic land through the Court of Augmentations and says other gentry did the same, which supports the idea that some welcomed closure. The lack of 'talk of rising again' suggests acceptance after 1537, but may reflect fear after the repression, and the writer is a beneficiary. The reference to the end of the doles and the scattered monks, who received small pensions, shows hardship for the poor and for former religious.

Own knowledge to add: the second wave of dissolution in 1539-40 (the larger houses, with the Act of 1539) met little resistance after abbots such as those of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester were executed; around 800 houses closed and the crown gained great income; about 12,000 monks, nuns and friars were affected, with pensions for heads of houses; effects on education, hospitals and relief; destruction of buildings and cultural loss; the sale of land created a vested interest among the gentry, tying them to the break with the old church.

Judgement: the sources provide only limited support. Attitudes varied by region, class and the type of house. Gentry and some townspeople gained or were unconcerned, while the poor and the north were far more opposed. The statement is therefore only partly correct.

AO1 5, AO2 5 (use of sources in context), AO3 10, plus SPaG 5. Total 25. Marks for the 20 content marks are awarded by level of response; SPaG is marked separately.

Level 5 (17-20): Sustained, balanced judgement on how far the sources support the statement. Uses all three sources, interprets their content and evaluates their provenance (for example Source A written for Cromwell, Source B a rebel petition that blames advisers, Source C from a beneficiary). Precise, relevant knowledge is used to test and extend the sources, e.g. the Valor Ecclesiasticus, the 1536 and 1539 Acts, the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Court of Augmentations, pensions and the loss of charity. Substantiated conclusion.
Level 4 (13-16): Uses all three sources with good evaluation or good knowledge but not fully balanced; reaches a supported judgement.
Level 3 (9-12): Uses all sources to support and challenge, with some own knowledge; the judgement is stated but thinly supported. Cap at Level 3 if no own knowledge is used or if there is no judgement.
Level 2 (5-8): Describes or extracts from sources with limited knowledge, or deals with only one side of the argument. Cap at Level 2 if only two sources are used.
Level 1 (1-4): Simple, generalised comments or paraphrase of the sources.
Within a level: bottom mark = borderline or just enough; middle = some inconsistency; top = consistently meets the descriptor. Nutshell: L5 balanced and evidenced, L4 mostly evaluated, L3 some balance, L2 one-sided or descriptive, L1 basic.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited): Source A supports in part (neglect, local criticism) but shows dependence of the poor; Source B opposes (charity, hospitality, jobs, prayers, northern rising); Source C mixed (gentry gain, no new revolt, but loss of doles, small pensions).

SPaG (5 marks): threshold performance 1 mark (spelling and punctuation basically accurate, simple control of meaning, some specialist terms); intermediate performance 2-3 marks (considerable accuracy, a reasonable range of specialist terms, clear meaning); high performance 4-5 marks (high accuracy, wide vocabulary, effective and accurate use of specialist terms such as dissolution, visitation, pension, Augmentations, pilgrimage). No marks for SPaG if the answer is not relevant to the question.

A threshold-style response might read: 'When Kenilworth was first built in the 1120s by Geoffrey de Clinton, it was mainly a stone keep (Caesar's Tower) with defences around it. It was there to show Norman power and to protect the area. In the early 1200s King John spent a lot of money on it. He added strong outer walls and the Mere, a huge man-made lake, which made it very hard to attack and was part of the layout of the castle. This was a time of warfare, so defence mattered most. In the 1390s John of Gaunt had a new great hall built with big windows and fine private rooms. This shows that the castle was now a place for living in and for impressing visitors, as well as for defence. Finally, in the 1560s and 70s Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, rebuilt much of the castle to try to impress Elizabeth I. He built Leicester's Building with huge glass windows, a new gatehouse, stables and a garden. The castle changed from a fortress to a palace, so the layout moved from defence to comfort and show.'

AO1 (5 marks): knowledge and understanding of the castle's features at different times. AO2 (5 marks): explanation of change using second-order concepts (change, continuity, cause). Levels of response (10 marks):

Level 5 (9-10) Nutshell: Developed, explained analysis of change across the period, with accurate and specific knowledge. Explains at least three stages of change, links changes to causes (e.g. changing function, owners' aims, threats and technology) and reaches a judgement on the overall pattern of change, e.g. from defence to display.
Level 4 (7-8) Nutshell: Explained analysis of change with mostly accurate knowledge. Explains two or three changes with some links to causes and function, but with limited overall pattern.
Level 3 (5-6) Nutshell: Some explanation of change. Identifies more than one change with some supporting detail; explanation is partly developed or one-sided.
Level 2 (3-4) Nutshell: Describes the castle at one or two times with limited explanation of how it changed.
Level 1 (1-2) Nutshell: Simple, general statements about castles or Kenilworth with little accurate detail.
Level 0 (0): No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom = borderline/just enough; middle = meets the descriptor with some inconsistency; top = consistently meets the descriptor. Answers that cover only one period, or describe without explaining change, should not go higher than Level 3. Answers that give no specific knowledge of Kenilworth should not go higher than Level 2.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited):
- c.1120s: Geoffrey de Clinton builds the stone keep (Caesar's Tower) within an enclosure; a symbol of Norman control and baronial power; defence and dwelling combined.
- Early 13th century: King John strengthens the castle, adds an outer curtain wall and develops the Mere, a large water defence, making the layout much more defensible; royal importance and the threat of baronial conflict (later 1266 siege during the baronial rebellion under de Montfort's supporters).
- Later 14th century: John of Gaunt builds a great hall and a suite of state apartments with large windows; shows the change of function to a luxurious residence for a powerful magnate; defences kept but display important.
- Early 15th century: Henry V's Pleasance in the Marsh, a retreat across the Mere, shows leisure and royal use.
- 1560s-1570s: Robert Dudley builds Leicester's Building, a new gatehouse, stables and a formal garden to host Elizabeth I (1575); the castle is remodelled as an Elizabethan palace and military function declines.
- Overall: shift from military strength to comfort, status and display; some continuity in the keep and curtain walls staying as the setting.

Source A: content. It describes the length of the siege (from midsummer to near St Thomas's feast in December), the water defences hampering the besiegers, the use of siege engines by both sides, the effect of sickness and shortage of food, and a surrender on terms. This fits what is known: Henry III's army besieged the rebel garrison, left by Simon de Montfort's supporters after his death at Evesham in 1265, and the garrison eventually surrendered in December 1266. Provenance: written close to the event (c.1267) by a monk, so it reflects the views and rumour of the time. The monk was not present, so details may be second-hand, and a monastic writer may favour the royal side or exaggerate. It says nothing of the castle's design or the longer consequences. Source B: content. It explains why the siege was so hard: the Great Tower, King John's outer defences and the enlarged mere. It gives the six-month length, notes that attack could only come from the north, and adds the outcome in the Dictum of Kenilworth. Provenance: a modern guidebook written by a heritage organisation with access to archaeological and documentary evidence and hindsight. It is, however, written for visitors, so it is short, simplified and may emphasise how impressive the castle was. It gives little on the experience of the siege, the weapons used, or the human cost. Judgement: Source A is more useful for the course of the siege and the conditions faced, because it is contemporary and gives detail on tactics. Source B is more useful for the underlying reasons (the form of the castle and its water defences) and the consequences. Best responses compare both and reach a justified choice, noting that usefulness depends on the precise enquiry.

AO3 (10 marks): analyse and evaluate sources to make substantiated judgements about utility; knowledge is used to contextualise the sources.

Level 5 (9-10): Sustained, balanced evaluation of both sources, using content, provenance and own knowledge of context (e.g. the baronial rebellion, Evesham 1265, the Dictum of Kenilworth, the castle's de Clinton keep and King John's works). Reaches a fully supported judgement on which is more useful and why, linked to the enquiry. 'Nutshell': Sustained judgement, both sources evaluated in context. Bottom 9 = slight imbalance; top 10 = consistently meets.
Level 4 (7-8): Evaluates both sources using content and provenance with some contextual knowledge. A judgement is made and mostly supported, but evaluation of one source is less developed. 'Nutshell': Good evaluation, supported judgement.
Level 3 (5-6): Some evaluation of both sources, perhaps using content or provenance but not both consistently. Judgement may be asserted rather than supported. 'Nutshell': Some evaluation, limited judgement.
Level 2 (3-4): Identifies useful information, or comments generally on provenance (e.g. 'written at the time', 'modern so has hindsight') without evaluating. 'Nutshell': Comment on sources, not evaluation.
Level 1 (1-2): Describes or copies the sources, or gives a generalised assertion about usefulness. 'Nutshell': Basic description.
0: No creditable response.

Capping: an answer that evaluates only one source should not go higher than Level 3. An answer that evaluates content only, with no provenance or context, should not go higher than Level 3. An answer that uses provenance only by stereotype ('it's biased', 'it's modern so better') is capped at Level 2.

Indicative content (all content is indicative only and any other correct examples should also be credited): Source A useful: contemporary account; shows length (summer to December), the water barrier, use of engines by both sides, disease and hunger, surrender on terms. Limitations: monk not present; possible royal bias; no detail on layout, and it offers no consequences. Source B useful: explains the castle's defences (Great Tower, King John's outer works, the mere), the north-side attack, the six-month length, outcome and the Dictum of Kenilworth. Limitations: modern, summarised for visitors; little on conditions inside the castle or siege methods. Own knowledge: Simon de Montfort's death at Evesham, 1265; garrison of rebels under Henry de Hastings; Henry III's royal army; later gift of Kenilworth to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. Either source may be judged more useful if the judgement is justified.

Example threshold answer (Level 3): 'Source A is useful because it was written soon after the siege and says the castle was surrounded by water and that sickness made the garrison give up. But the monk was not there so he might be wrong. Source B is useful because it explains why the siege was so long, the mere and the keep made it hard to attack, and it tells us about the Dictum. It was written by a heritage group, which might simplify things. I think Source B is more useful because it explains why the castle held out.'