9489 · June 2024
History
A considerable proportion of responses addressed part (b) before they answered part (a). The question paper is designed to help candidates focus by addressing a two-source question and then a four-source question.
Source: Cambridge International
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
No data available in official reports
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
It is most important that responses are closely focused on the terms of the question. This is important in both questions but many responses to part (a) were weakened by lacking an appropriate focus. The task is not simply to compare the sources but to compare them in such a way that the question is answered.
In part (b) answers should consider how the sources support and challenge the prompt in the question. It will always be possible to develop a two-sided argument from the sources.
Commentaries about the reliability or ‘bias’ of the sources, which do not serve the needs of the question, are not relevant.
Responses are most effective when part (a) is answered first.
The most effective responses are closely focused on the terms of the question.
When reading sources candidates should ensure that they take notice of the overall message of the source to understand the argument or point of view of the author. Each source should be viewed holistically rather than divided into individual sentences or part sentences which, taken alone, can convey different ideas to that of the whole source.
It is important to use source content to support points made in both sections of the question paper. Quotations should be precisely selected rather than a section of the source being identified in general.
In part (a) evidence from the sources should be given to support the comparison being made.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
9489/11
Document Question
9489/12
Document Question
9489/13
Document Question
9489/22
Outline Study
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
No data available in official reports
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 evaluating the sources is not creditworthy unless the evaluation is linked to the question. Many responses contained lengthy sections of background information or generalised commentary on the bias and reliability of sources. In part (b), candidates might ask themselves if their knowledge supports or challenges the claims made in a source as a way of assessing the weight of the source as evidence. Alternatively, if a source was written for a specific audience or to achieve a specific outcome, candidates should consider how that affects its weight as evidence. It is important to remember that each question and set of sources work differently. Generalised comments about a source being a political speech and therefore biased, or a cartoon being designed to entertain the audience do not constitute evaluation. Comments on specific questions Section A: European option: The Industrial Revolution in Britian, 1750 – 1850 Question 1 (a) Read Source B and Source C. Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about attitudes towards child labour in the textile industry. For comparisons to be effective it was essential that inferences were made about the attitude being expressed. Simply comparing details without explaining what they showed about attitudes was not enough. The most commonly seen comparison was that Source B demonstrated a negative attitude towards child labour and Source C was more positive in its attitude. This was often developed with effective source use to illustrate the attitudes shown in each source. Many referred to the comments in Source B about child labour being worse than slavery to support the negative attitude. This was compared against Source C’s writer expressing concern that children were actually worse off when they were not working. Many responses identified a valid similarity, as they expressed a regretful attitude about the physical wellbeing of the child workers. Source B explained how some child labourers could barely walk when they reached adulthood. Source C admitted that children worked ‘beyond their strength’. A few responses demonstrated specific contextual knowledge of the Factory Acts or general understanding of the impacts of industrialisation. Too often attempts at explanation took the line that Source C was by a factory owner so ‘he would say that wouldn’t he.’ Specific contextual knowledge about factory conditions could have been used to explain the similarity between the sources. (b) Read all of the sources. How far do the sources show that factory reform was in the wider public interest? Most candidates gave a two-sided response to the question and there was evidence of effective source use in many answers. Source A was identified as a challenge source. Responses explained that reforming the factories by reducing the hours of the workers would be bad for Britian as it would damage profits. In turn this would be bad for the workers as their wages could be reduced. Source B, on the other hand, was argued as a support source, although some responses tried to argue that it was neutral or had nothing to do the with the idea of ‘wider public interest’. The most effective answers used their knowledge of the context and understood that ensuring that children were safe from harm or were not encouraged to commit crimes was in the public interest. Some used the comments made by the slave owner in the source to explain that reform was needed because child labour was ‘unethical’ or ‘immoral’. Source C was seen as a support source, responses pointing out that if factory reforms were introduced they could ‘benefit our foreign rivals’, with the added impact of reducing the wages of the workers. The source could also be used to show that some reform had already taken place. The reference to children under thirteen now working ‘only eight hours daily’ was evidence that factory reform was advocated by some people and was considered by them to be in the public interest. Source D was often used well as a support source and candidates understood the mill owner’s argument that more hours did not result in workers being more productive. Responses which used their knowledge to evaluate the sources to decide whether the support or challenge element of the argument was stronger were seen very rarely. Most attempts to evaluate were generic, often stating that the source was biased or unreliable because it was from a mill owner or a reformer without making any link to the context or the question. A significant minority of responses took a one-sided approach to the question and some dismissed sources as being irrelevant to the question.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 were not focused on the question, instead focusing on reparations or the Treaty of Versailles in general rather than specifics related to the post-war arrangements for the Saarland. Weaker responses sometimes asserted similarities or differences which were not comparable or simply wrote about the provenance. Some responses demonstrated knowledge of the topic covered by the sources but this was rarely used to the best effect. Contextual understanding is vital for responses to achieve marks in the higher levels. In part (a), achieving Level 4 is based on explaining the similarities or differences between the sources. It is necessary to consider the sources in context to work out why they are similar or different. In part (b) the reward of higher-level marks requires evaluation of the sources to assess their weight as evidence. However, evaluating the sources is not creditworthy unless the evaluation is linked to the question. Many responses contained lengthy sections of background information or generalised commentary on the bias and reliability of sources. In part (b), candidates might ask themselves if their knowledge supports or challenges the claims made in a source as a way of assessing the weight of the source as evidence. Alternatively, if a source was written for a specific audience or to achieve a specific outcome, candidates should consider how that affects its weight as evidence. It is important to remember that each question and set of sources work differently. Generalised comments about a source being a political speech and therefore biased, or a cartoon being designed to entertain the audience do not constitute evaluation. Comments on specific questions Section A: European option: The Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1750 – 1850 Question 1 (a) Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about the growth of towns. Most responses identified relevant similarities between the sources and supported this with effective use of source details and inferences from the engraving ‘London Going out of Town’, with most comparing unhealthy living conditions. Some responses highlighted the rapidity of growth. Many responses identified valid differences with the sources, with most candidates identifying the lack of regulation in London in comparison to Manchester. To make effective use of knowledge and reach Level 4, it was necessary to use relevant details to explain the similarities or differences between the sources, and many candidates used their knowledge of legislation such as the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act to explain differences in regulation. (b) How far do these source show that regulation was needed to improve public health in the towns? Many candidates gave a substantial response to the question and there was evidence of effective source use in most answers. Source A was identified as a support source, with many candidates inferring difficult living conditions which required regulation. Elements of support and challenge were identified correctly from source B. Sources C and D were recognised as challenge sources, with the elements of nuance in C – that it admitted popular support for regulation – being a valid identification. Stronger responses used contextual knowledge to evaluate the sources to decide whether the support or challenge element of the argument was stronger, while weaker responses adopted general evaluation and often stated that the source was biased or unreliable. The sources will always offer opportunities to address both elements of the argument, and all sources will be relevant to the view in question. Section B: American Option: The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal policies, 1920 – 41 Question 2 (a) Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about the Schechter ‘Sick Chicken’ case. Most responses dealt with this question very well and could clearly draw similarities and differences between the two sources. The question was focused on the Schechter case. Therefore, answers had to focus on the details of the case and the reasons for its outcome. Most responses offered support from the sources to explain and develop their points and remained focused on the Schecter case and its outcomes. Some weaker responses asserted that the sources were similar
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 or different but did not provide relevant material from both sources to support their comparison, while in others the focus drifted from the case to wider issues of court packing and the Supreme Court. (b) How far so the sources support the view that the opposition to the Court packing plan was based on a fear that it would give too much power to the President? Most responses made effective use of the sources to support and challenge the view that opposition to the Court packing plan was based on fear of too much power being given to the President. Source A was argued to support the hypothesis, with most candidates identifying key messages from the cartoon. Source B was also a support source and many candidates identified key messages around the ‘personal power of the Executive’. Source C was also used effectively to challenge the view with many candidates identifying the personal and political reasons highlighted by Roosevelt when trying to justify his actions to Democratic supporters. Source D was used in challenge, but several responses did not identify that the opposition highlighted was for political rather than constitutional reasons. Section C: International Option: The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s Question 3 (a) Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about the arrangements for the Saar. This question required candidates to compare evidence about arrangements for the Saar after the First World War. Most candidates were able to recognise both similarities and differences in the sources as detailed in the mark scheme. However, the focus of some responses drifted into giving a great deal of detail about other elements to the Peace Conference in Versailles and summaries of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which were not relevant to the question. The strongest responses began to use their knowledge of the period to explain the differences between the sources using contextual detail which went beyond rote evaluation, in particular their knowledge of the plebiscite and the League of Nations commission. Some weaker responses added a stand- alone discussion of the provenance and reliability, which did not serve the needs of the question, while others did not identify key facts from the sources because of a lack of specific focus on the Saar. These responses listed narrative detail which was too general for the needs of the evaluation. (b) How far do the sources support the view that German anger about reparations was justified? Most responses engaged with the sources effectively to offer support and challenge for the assertion that German anger about the reparations was justified. Source B was used well by candidates as a support source who used the ‘victorious violence’ discussed to identify justification on the grounds of being unreasonable and excessive. Source D was used less effectively, but some responses used its description of ‘economic slavery’ to support the view. A few responses found the implications of source A – that Germany ‘will pay’ more – difficult to use to challenge the hypothesis, but most candidates successfully used source C with Clemenceau’s argument of the demands being quite reasonable, to challenge the idea of the right of Germany to feel angry about the reparations. Some responses showed uncertainty over the term ‘justified’ and this led to some misreading and confusion about the meaning of the sources. The strongest responses used contextual knowledge of the period to evaluate the sources and explain how this evaluation made them more or less valuable when answering the question. Most responses demonstrated some contextual knowledge, often about the details of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, but only a few used this to evaluate the sources to decide whether the support or challenge element of the argument was stronger. In weaker responses evaluation was quite general, often stating that the source was biased or unreliable without any links to the context or the question. The weakest responses described source content without making a clear link to the question.
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 Section B: American Option: The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal policies, 1920 – 41 Question 2 (a) Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about Secretary Mellon. Most responses dealt with this question very well and could clearly draw similarities and differences between the two sources. Most responses identified relevant similarities between the sources, the most frequently discussed being Mellon’s belief in a ‘leave-it-alone’ attitude. In most cases these similarities were supported with effective use of source details. Most responses also identified valid differences, most especially the portrayal of Mellon contrasting between ‘not hard-hearted’ and ‘sympathetic to suffering’ and ‘ruthless and hard-hearted’. In some instances, possible differences were missed because of limited detailed contextual knowledge being applied to the task, with few responses identifying the differences stated about the work of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (b) To what extent do the sources support the view that President Hoover did little to try and solve the Depression? Many candidates gave a two-sided response to the question and there was evidence of effective source use in most responses. Source A was identified as a support source, with responses explaining that Hoover did little apart from making suggestions which were impossible to implement. However the tone and emphasis in the source was rarely commented upon, and the potential to evaluate the source in depth using the additional detailed provenance from the official marking the letter ‘not worth answering’ was seldom taken up by candidates. Source B was also seen as a support source, although more blame is placed on Mellon than on Hoover himself in its content. Source C challenged the assertion with a confident and positive portrayal of Hoover’s impact on the Depression with links to four key factors. Most candidates identified this, although some responses found it difficult to identify the affirmative elements of the portrayal or were mistaken about the activity represented. Source D was a nuanced source which could also be used to support the actions for recovery taken by Hoover’s approach. As authored by Hoover, it clearly challenges the assertion, highlighting positive steps to recovery. However, the source content also supports the ‘did little’ view, in that he adopted a ‘leave-well-alone’ policy deliberately as he felt that would be beneficial for the economy and the slump would ‘reform’ the people. Many responses identified these nuances and this added depth to their discussions. Section C: International Option: The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s Question 3 (a) Compare and contrast these two sources as evidence about German disarmament after the Treaty of Versailles. This question required candidates to compare evidence about German disarmament. Most candidates were able to recognise both relevant similarities and differences in the sources. Similarities were best identified, with many responses highlighting the breaches of disarmament agreements with ‘a few thousand rifles’ and the ‘cargoes of arms and ammunition’. Some weaker responses drifted from their focus and attempted to write detailed responses on the wider provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which were not relevant to the question in hand. The strongest responses began to use their knowledge of the period to explain the differences between the sources in particular their knowledge of Stresemann’s tenure as Foreign Minister and the ‘Golden Years’. To make effective use of contextual knowledge and reach Level 4, it was necessary to use relevant details to explain the similarities or differences between the sources. Some responses added a discussion of the provenance and reliability of the two sources which did not explain the differences, and which did not directly serve the needs of the question. (b) ‘Worldwide disarmament was achievable after the agreement at Locarno.’ How far do the sources support this view? Most responses engaged with the sources to offer support and challenge to the view that worldwide disarmament was achievable after Locarno. Elements of support and challenge were
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 HISTORY Paper 9489/21 Outline Study Key messages • Candidates should develop a good understanding of the chronology of key events as this will help them to link factors accurately and build effective arguments. • In Part (a) questions the key element is explaining why something happened. Identifying several reasons is an important first step but to reach higher levels of the mark scheme it is necessary to give a clear understanding of the connections between causes to reach a supported conclusion. • In Part (b) questions, responses should address the question rather than the topic, maintain a balanced approach and ensure that arguments are appropriately supported. A well written but one-sided analysis will not allow the candidate to reach the top Level of the mark scheme. • Candidates should note and act on any timeframe given in the question. This will enable the response to be focused on the question set. General comments Part (a) questions are about causation. Effective answers were distinguished by detailed knowledge and understanding of the reasons why a specific event occurred or why someone adopted a particular course of action. This is because causation can only be adequately explained by an appreciation of the combined effect of several factors, both long and short-term. The most effective responses focused clearly on the key issue of causation and contained analysis of a wide range of factors, demonstrating how they were connected and produced reasoned conclusions. The identification and explanation of some relevant causal factors was made by most candidates. Less successful answers tended to drift into narrative or descriptive accounts of how something occurred, rather than why. The weaker responses were characterised by a tendency to drift into irrelevancy and factual inaccuracy and/or confused chronology; they were over-reliant on vague and generalised assertions lacking appropriate factual support. In Part (b) the awareness that historical issues can be interpreted in many different, and, often, contradictory ways was a characteristic of strong answers. Other responses provided arguments which considered one interpretation of the issue. Responses which were less successful fell into one of two categories – narrative/descriptive accounts of the topic with only implicit reference to the actual question; relevant arguments based on factual support which was limited in range and depth. The weakest responses were often the result of confusion over the requirements of the question; they were characterised by factual inaccuracy and/or chronological confusion, assertions based on inadequate factual support or a tendency to lose focus, often by ignoring timeframes given in the question. Comments on specific questions Section A: Modern Europe 1750 – 1921 Question 1: France, 1774 – 1814 (a) Explain why Napoleon became emperor in 1804. Successful responses were able to provide several reasons for why Napoleon was able to become emperor, showing a good level of understanding. Many were able to explain for example, how Napoleon created a positive image for himself through propaganda or his military successes or argued that after the troubled history of the Directory and Robespierre, Napoleon represented stability. Weaker responses were able to identify reasons, but were unable to support these
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 significant cause for the Bolsheviks because it forced compliance of the citizens and army. Tsarist officers, for example were employed under the Bolsheviks while their families were held hostage. They also reintroduced the death penalty in the military. While the White army suffered from mass desertions the Reds used threats to ensure their numbers remained high.’ Strong responses were able to analyse the benefits of the central location, factories and access to the railway system provided by Petrograd and Moscow, but also assess alternative reasons for the Bolshevik victory such as War Communism, Trotsky’s leadership, and the unpopularity of the Whites. Weaker responses showed some understanding of the importance of Petrograd and Moscow but were unable to access the higher levels as their assessment lacked support. Section B: The history of the USA, 1820 –1941 Question 4: The origins of the Civil War, 1820 – 61 (a) Explain why the Dred Scott decision caused anger in Northern states. Many very good responses were seen to this question, with the circumstances of the Dred Scott case well known and usually accurately described, despite some confusion around the exact circumstances that he found himself in after the death of his owner. The most common approach was to initially describe the case before addressing the issue of why the decision so upset the Northern states. The strongest answers were able to provide several reasons for the anger, before linking them through the context of the ongoing debate over the issue of slavery and the growth of the abolitionist movement in the North. Most candidates understood that the decision blurred the distinction between ‘free’ and ‘slave’ states or considered the notion of a ‘slave conspiracy’ that had the effect of strengthening the constitutional position of slavery within the USA. Other responses argued that the decision was simply seen as ‘morally wrong’ and indefensible, by defining black Americans as ‘property’ rather than as humans with an entitlement to some decent treatment. Weaker responses confused the Dred Scott case with the Fugitive Slave Law, erroneously arguing that he was an escaped slave who had to be returned. (b) ‘The entry of Texas into the Union was the biggest threat to the Missouri Compromise’. How far do you agree? A range of responses were seen to this question, with many answers attempting some form of assessment, and also to provide balance. Stronger responses were able to explain why Texas’ entry into the Union in 1845 was a large threat to the Missouri Compromise knowing the terms of the 1820 agreement and demonstrating how the entry of Texas would result in an imbalance between slave and free states. Balance was usually portrayed by discussing the Mexican/American Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the territories gained being a geographical and political threat to the Missouri Compromise due to the large swathes of land becoming available to slavery. The 1850 Compromise was sometimes explained as a greater threat as was the result of westward expansion. The concept of ‘popular sovereignty’ was often discussed in relation to the 1850 Compromise and more commonly with reference to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Weaker responses often did not recognise that Texas became a slave state, instead assuming it must be a free state by joining the ‘Union’ side. Others assessed events outside the time period of the Missouri Compromise such as Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott case, or offered some valid description of the various threats, though with limited supporting evidence. Question 5: Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861 – 77 (a) Explain why there was Northern support for Congressional Reconstruction after 1866. Strong responses focused directly on the context of Congressional Reconstruction, what was achieved through, and the reasons for Northern support. For example, ‘There was support as it would improve the lives of the former slaves through the amendments it introduced, and the North wanted this as they were outraged at how poorly they were being treated in the South through the Black Codes. Freedmen were not allowed to carry arms, travel freely, and were often used as unpaid labour. Congressional Reconstruction introduced the 15th Amendment which allowed Black Americans to vote, and the 14th Amendment meant that they were American citizens.’ These responses often also explained that it was a deliberate attempt to ‘punish’ the South for its attitude to Black rights by imposing a Northern solution on the South, and through the imposition of military rule. Other valid explanations considered the opposition from Congress to Presidential Reconstruction under Johnson and his vetoing of the 14th Amendment. Weaker responses wrote
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
No data available in official reports
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
No data available in official reports
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
European option: Modern Europe, 1750–1921 (Papers 1 and 2)
American option: The history of the USA, 1820–1941 (Papers 1 and 2)
International option: International history, 1870–1945 (Papers 1 and 2)
International option: International history, 1870–1945
European option: Modern Europe, 1750–1921
American option: The history of the USA, 1820–1941
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
No data available in official reports
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Self-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
It is most important that responses are closely focused on the terms of the question. This is important in both questions but many responses to part (a) were weakened by lacking an appropriate focus. The task is not simply to compare the sources but to compare them in such a way that the question is answered.
- 2Message
In part (b) answers should consider how the sources support and challenge the prompt in the question. It will always be possible to develop a two-sided argument from the sources.
- 3Message
Commentaries about the reliability or ‘bias’ of the sources, which do not serve the needs of the question, are not relevant.
- 4Message
Responses are most effective when part (a) is answered first.
- 5Message
The most effective responses are closely focused on the terms of the question.
- 6Message
When reading sources candidates should ensure that they take notice of the overall message of the source to understand the argument or point of view of the author. Each source should be viewed holistically rather than divided into individual sentences or part sentences which, taken alone, can convey different ideas to that of the whole source.
- 7Message
It is important to use source content to support points made in both sections of the question paper. Quotations should be precisely selected rather than a section of the source being identified in general.
- 8Message
In part (a) evidence from the sources should be given to support the comparison being made.
- 9Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Exam
- 10Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Exam
- 11Strength
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Prin…: Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Exam
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
June 2024 2024
History
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level 9489 History June 2024 Principal Examiner Report for Teachers © 2024 HISTORY Paper 9489/11 Document Question Key messages • It is most important that responses are closely focused on the terms of the question. This is
It is most important that responses are closely focused on the terms of the question. This is important in both questions but many responses to part (a) were weakened by lacking an appropriate focus. The task is not simply to compare the sources but to compare them in such a way that the question is answered.
In part (b) answers should consider how the sources support and challenge the prompt in the question. It will always be possible to develop a two-sided argument from the sources.
Commentaries about the reliability or ‘bias’ of the sources, which do not serve the needs of the question, are not relevant.
Examiner insights
General comments
- •A considerable proportion of responses addressed part (b) before they answered part (a).
- •The question paper is designed to help candidates focus by addressing a two-source question and then a four-source question.
- •It is helpful for candidates to answer part (a) first.
- •Those who elect to answer part (b) first often misjudge their timings and find it challenging to maintain the correct focus for part (a).
- •The question paper is designed to help candidates focus by addressing a two-source question first.