The 8 Mark "Which Interpretation is More Convincing" Question: Russia (Q3) (AQA GCSE History)
Revision Note
Summary of Question Three
Question Three requires you to evaluate which interpretation is more convincing about the issue outlined
The interpretations used in Question Three will be the same interpretations used in Questions One and Two
Amount of marks | 8 |
|---|---|
The time that you should spend on the question | No more than 10 minutes |
An example of the type of question you may encounter can be seen below:
In previous years, this question has focused on the following topics in Russian history:
Year of Exam | Question Topic |
|---|---|
2018 | |
2019 | |
2020 | |
2021 | |
2022 | |
Sample 1 | Collectivism |
Sample 2 | Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution |
How to Analyse an Interpretation
For the example question above, you will use the same two interpretations as you did in Questions One and Two. These are found in the insert
An insert is an additional booklet to your answer paper. It provides key sources or interpretations needed to answer specific questions in the exam
When analysing an interpretation you should:
Read the interpretations carefully
If you have time, read the interpretations more than once
Focus only on the content of the interpretation
If you refer to the provenance you will receive no marks for the comments made
Whilst reading the interpretation underline or highlight relevant pieces of text
Annotate the interpretation by attaching your knowledge to the content of the interpretation
When analysing an interpretation many students forget to focus on the issue outlined in the question
For example, if a question is asking you about the reactions to World War One and the interpretation includes reactions towards industrialisation, you disregard the information about industrialisation
Why are Some Interpretations More Convincing?
Interpretations are used in history to explain the past by looking at history from different points of view
However, some interpretations are more convincing than others
More convincing interpretations could have one of the following:
More accurate knowledge
A greater understanding of the historical period
A more typical experience from the historical period
A more accepted point of view
The easiest way to decide if an interpretation is more convincing is by using your knowledge
For the example question, you could use Stolypin's actions in 1906 and the second Duma in 1907 to show that Interpretation A is more convincing for understanding Stolypin
Judging Interpretations
The “How Convincing” question requires you to make a judgement
The common mistakes that students make when making a judgement are:
Not giving a clear judgement. Students do this by:
Explaining that both interpretations are more convincing
Failing to decide which interpretation is more convincing
Using language in their answer which is not decisive e.g. “kind of” or “maybe”
Contradicting your judgements
Students sometimes haven’t planned their answers properly. They start to write their answer with one judgement and then change their opinion halfway through
Doing this means that there is not a sustained judgement and you can not access level 4 (6-8 marks)
Good judgements will:
Explain which interpretation is more convincing
Have a substantiated judgement
Be supported with specific knowledge
Relevant to the interpretations and the question
Although you need to decide if one interpretation is more convincing, it does not mean that one interpretation will be right and the other will be wrong
Your judgement does not need to include limitations and you can receive full marks without one
Students responses are stronger when they are decisive and clear about which interpretation is more convincing
However, if you include a limitation you will be credited, you must make sure the limitation is:
Supported by knowledge
Focused on the question
Relevant to your answer
“How Convincing is the Interpretation” Structure
Your answer should consist of:
Specific relevant knowledge
Information from both interpretations A and B
The wider context of the time
Your answer could be written in PEE paragraphs
P- Make a point about the question
Make it clear which interpretation you are going to discuss
Identify if you find the interpretation more convincing
E- Use information from the interpretation and knowledge to support the point you have made
Your knowledge should be specific
Focus on the content from the interpretation
E- Explain why you find the interpretation more or less convincing
Focus on the given issue in the question
For top marks, you need to show your understanding of the wider context of the time
To achieve full marks, you need to repeat this once for each interpretation
Worked Example of a “Which Interpretation is More Convincing” Question
Worked Example
Which interpretation gives the more convincing opinion about Stolypin?
Explain your answer based on your contextual knowledge and what it says in Interpretation A and B.
[8 marks]
Interpretation A: Adapted from the Memoirs of Count Witte, published in 1921. Witte was the Minister who introduced the October Manifesto (1905). Nicholas II sacked him and later replaced him with Witte’s rival, Stolypin. “The October Manifesto had promised people political rights, such as freedom of speech. But Stolypin blocked all attempts to carry out what we had promised. He allowed the police to enter homes and arrest people illegally. The men in Stolypin’s Government were only interested in their own careers and did as they pleased. As a result, Stolypin lost the respect of all decent people.” |
Interpretation B: Adapted from Government and Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas II by Vladimir Gurko, published in 1939. Gurko was a Russian noble and government minister. He helped Stolypin introduce his reforms. “Stolypin’s only thought was for the good of his country. He worked successfully with the Duma. Under his clever direction, calm and peace spread throughout the country. Wealth increased rapidly. In 1900 the average Russian had an income of 98 roubles a year, but by 1912 it was 130 roubles. He was one of the most outstanding ministers of Nicholas II.” |
Answer:
Although both interpretations have convincing aspects Interpretation A is more convincing than Interpretation B. Interpretation A states that Stolypin "blocked all attempts to carry out what we [the Duma] had promised". To end opposition towards the Tsar in the countryside in 1906 Stolypin hanged over 1,000 people and 200,000 people were exiled by using the "stick and carrot" method. Furthermore, this interpretation is convincing because Stolypin did prevent other freedoms given to the Russian people by the October Manifesto as he excluded large numbers from voting for the second Duma in 1907. This interpretation is more convincing because many of the policies and methods used by Stolypin reduced the freedoms of the Russian people which the October Manifesto gave.
Interpretation B is less convincing than A. Interpretation B states that “wealth increased rapidly" during Stolypin’s governance. During this period there was significant industrial growth, especially in agriculture and grain production. However, this interpretation is less convincing than A because the working and living conditions remained poor, and the economic growth profits went to industrialists, not the Russian people. Furthermore, this interpretation is less convincing as it states Stolypin created "calm and peace" throughout Russia however thousands of Russians were arrested and executed by "Stolypin’s necktie" as mentioned in Interpretation A.
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?