Historical Skills: Source Analysis, Interpretation and Argument
Reading sources as evidence
The skills domain tests whether you can interrogate evidence, not merely quote it. For any source, establish provenance (author, date, purpose, audience), content (what is claimed, what is omitted), and context (what was happening, what the author could know). Then judge reliability for a specific purpose: a propaganda poster is unreliable as a record of public opinion but excellent evidence of regime intent. Never say a source is "biased, therefore useless" - bias is itself evidence.
Handling interpretations
Historiographical questions ask you to compare how historians explain the same event. Identify each interpretation's thesis, the evidence type it privileges, and its methodological assumption. Common schools include intentionalist versus structuralist explanations of genocide, orthodox versus revisionist accounts of Cold War origins, and "great man" versus social-history approaches. The trap is caricaturing a historian to make rebuttal easy; represent the position fairly first.
Building an argument
A strong response has a line of argument stated early, sustained through topic sentences, and revisited in a conclusion that concedes complexity. Use evidence as proof, not decoration. Where sources conflict, explain why rather than stacking them side by side.
Worked example
Prompt: "How useful is Source A for understanding civilian morale?" Answer pattern: identify the source's origin and purpose; extract what it reveals about official messaging; note what it cannot show (lived experience, dissent); conclude with a judgement of usefulness for that specific question. Usefulness is always purpose-relative.
Rule of thumb
Apply C-P-C-R: Content, Provenance, Context, Reliability-for-purpose. It keeps source answers analytical and prevents description without judgement.