Analysing evidence
This is the externally examined skill domain. It tests inference, corroboration and evaluation rather than comprehension: you are judged on what you can do with sources, not on summarising them.
From description to analysis
- Comprehension: what the source says.
- Inference: what it implies when read against context.
- Evaluation: how far it can be trusted, and for what purpose. Tie every move back to the focus question.
Provenance and purpose
Who made it, when, where, why, for whom. A petition and a governor's despatch about the same land dispute answer different questions and carry different pressures.
Bias, reliability, usefulness
Bias is a point of view shaped by interest; it is not the same as dishonesty. Reliability means consistency with other evidence. Usefulness means relevance to your question. A protest poster is strong evidence of the values it promotes and weak evidence of the events it describes.
Corroboration and silences
Agreement between sources strengthens a claim only if they are independent. Silences matter: an archive built by officials may omit Māori voices, so name the limitation rather than pretend it is absent.
Worked example
Focus: Māori responses to land confiscation after 1863. A Native Department letter book summarises officials' versions of complaints; a Māori-language petition from Waikato chiefs frames the same grievances as breach of the Treaty; a Waitangi Tribunal report synthesises both but is itself an interpretation. The strongest answer combines them, notes the power asymmetry in translation and intended audience, then makes a supported claim.
Traps
Quoting a source as illustration without explaining its meaning; treating bias as automatic disqualification; ignoring who is missing from the record.