Two Sources on a Factory Reform
A student is comparing two sources about an 1830s factory reform law. Source 1 is a speech by a mill owner opposing the law, arguing that limiting hours to ten would ruin competitiveness and throw children into worse poverty. Source 2 is a government inspector's report noting that many mills had already reduced hours voluntarily and that output in those mills had not fallen. The student concludes that Source 1 is biased and worthless while Source 2 is objective and reliable. The assignment asks the student to evaluate both sources for usefulness in explaining why the law passed, not to rank them by honesty.
1. Critique the student's conclusion that Source 1 is worthless because it is biased.
Read the worked answer
The student confuses bias with uselessness. Source 1 is a stakeholder argument, and its value lies precisely in revealing the economic objections reformers had to overcome. The mill owner's claim that ten-hour limits would ruin competitiveness and worsen child poverty is a testable prediction and an insight into employer reasoning. If the law passed despite such arguments, the source helps explain the political contest. Calling Source 2 objective is also too generous: an inspector's report reflects the priorities of the inspecting agency and may select favorable mills. Usefulness depends on the question asked. For explaining why the law passed, Source 1 shows opposition and its terms, while Source 2 shows that voluntary reduction was already occurring, which undercuts the ruin claim and may have weakened resistance. Both are useful for different purposes, and neither should be dismissed on the basis of bias alone.
2. Explain how the two sources together could support a claim about why the law passed.
Read the worked answer
The sources can be combined into an argument about shifting the burden of proof. Source 1 predicts economic ruin from shorter hours. Source 2 reports that some mills had already cut hours voluntarily without output loss, which supplies counter-evidence to that prediction. If enough mills demonstrated viability, the ruin argument lost force, making passage more feasible. The reasoning must be careful: Source 2 covers only mills that reduced hours voluntarily, which may be atypical, so it cannot establish that all mills could absorb the change. Nor does it prove the law passed because of these findings; other factors such as parliamentary pressure or public opinion may have mattered more. A defensible claim is that Source 2 weakened a key employer objection articulated in Source 1, lowering the political cost of reform. The student should state this as a contributing factor, not a sole cause, and note the limited sample.