Cambridge International AS & A Level History (9489), Paper 1(b): How to Structure a Strong Source-Based Answer

Sep 7

10 min read

Your task is to decide how far the sources support the statement. Explain the evidence on both sides, evaluate how convincing it is, and use that evaluation to reach a judgement.

Part (b) is worth 25 marks. The highest band is Level 5: 21–25 marks.

1. Understand the question before reading for evidence

For example:

Read all of the sources. How far do these sources show that factory reform was in the wider public interest?

The question asks whether reform benefited the wider public, rather than simply one group.

Look for evidence about effects on children, families, workers, employers and the economy. A benefit to factory owners alone does not necessarily establish a benefit to society; equally, an economic concern should not automatically be dismissed as selfish.

You are judging what the sources establish about the statement—not writing a general essay on factory reform.

The precise wording matters:

If the statement concerns…	Ask…
A cause	Do the sources identify it as a cause, the main cause, or one of several causes?
Success or effectiveness	Do they show intentions, action or actual results?
Motives	Do they establish why someone acted, rather than merely what they did?
Public interest	Who benefited or suffered, and how widely?
Justification	What evidence supports the claimed grounds for the action or complaint?

2. Make a short source plan

Before writing, make brief notes:

Source	Supports, challenges or both?	Best evidence	How convincing—and why?
A	…	…	…
B	…	…	…
C	…	…	…
D	…	…	…

Read each source as a whole. Do not force an isolated sentence into an argument that contradicts its meaning.

A source can contribute to both sides, but you must explain the distinction. For example, it might acknowledge a policy’s benefits while arguing that its costs were greater.

3. Use this straightforward structure

For students learning the skill, a clear approach is four source paragraphs followed by a conclusion.

Paragraph	What to do
1: Source A	Explain how it supports or challenges the statement, evaluate the relevant evidence, and state what weight it carries.
2: Source B	Do the same. Connect it to A if there is a meaningful agreement or disagreement.
3: Source C	Explain and evaluate its contribution, including both sides if appropriate.
4: Source D	Explain and evaluate its contribution, making relevant connections to earlier sources.
5: Conclusion	Decide how far the sources support the statement, explaining which evidence is most convincing and why.

You may split a long source discussion into two paragraphs.

A source-by-source structure is acceptable. Cambridge explicitly confirms that sources can be considered in order or grouped. It also explains that evaluating each source as you discuss it can help you maintain focus on its weight.

A grouped structure—supporting arguments followed by challenging arguments—also works. Whichever you choose, evaluate as you go, rather than leaving all evaluation to a final paragraph.

4. Follow these steps within each source paragraph

Step 1: State how the source answers the question

“Source A challenges the statement because it argues that…”

Name the specific argument. “Source A supports the statement” alone is insufficient.

Step 2: Provide evidence

Use a short quotation or precise paraphrase.

“This is shown by its claim that…”

Step 3: Explain the connection

“This challenges the idea that reform served the wider public because…”

Explain what the evidence establishes. Do not assume the quotation speaks for itself.

Step 4: Evaluate that particular evidence

Use relevant context, authorship, purpose, audience or another source to assess the claim.

“This argument requires caution because…”

or:

“This claim is convincing because…”

Step 5: Explain the consequence for your judgement

“The source therefore provides strong evidence of…, although it does not establish…”

This final step turns a comment about provenance into an assessment of weight.

A reusable paragraph framework:

Source A supports/challenges the statement by arguing that [specific point]. Its reference to [evidence]suggests [inference]. This supports/challenges the statement because [connection to the question]. However/Moreover, [specific contextual or provenance-based evaluation]. Therefore, its evidence is [assessment of weight] for establishing [precise conclusion].

Use the framework flexibly. The reasoning matters more than the wording.

5. Understand what evaluation actually means

Evaluation asks how far you can accept or use a specific piece of evidence.

Weak comment	Stronger approach
“The author is a factory owner, so the source is biased.”	Explain how the owner’s interests may shape a particular claim, then test that claim.
“It is a private diary, so it is reliable.”	Explain what the writer could know and what the diary reveals; privacy does not guarantee accuracy.
“The source was written later, so it is more reliable.”	Identify what later knowledge helps the author understand—or how later developments may shape the account.
“My own knowledge agrees with the source.”	Give the precise fact and explain which claim it supports.

For example:

A factory owner’s warning about lost wages deserves consideration because employers understood production costs. However, a financial interest in resisting restrictions could encourage emphasis on the worst possible consequences. The prediction therefore needs testing against evidence of what happened when hours were reduced.

This recognises both relevant knowledge and possible selectivity.

6. Use your knowledge to test the source

Your knowledge should answer a specific question about the evidence:

Does it support the claim?
Does it show exaggeration?
Does it reveal an exception?
Does it explain the author’s perspective?
Does it show a gap between promises and results?

Avoid a separate paragraph recounting the history of the topic.

Also distinguish an event occurring from the conclusion you draw about it. For example, the existence of legislation limiting children’s hours does not, by itself, prove that the legislation benefited everyone or enjoyed widespread support.

7. Compare sources to weigh the evidence

Cross-reference sources when they address the same claim.

For the factory-reform example:

An owner’s account of maintaining output after reducing hours would challenge a prediction that shorter hours necessarily damaged production.

Then assess how far that comparison takes you:

This practical example weakens the claim that economic damage was inevitable. However, experience in one mill does not establish that every factory would achieve the same result.

Agreement does not automatically prove truth, and disagreement does not automatically disprove a source.Consider whether the sources concern comparable circumstances and whether their evidence is independent.

You are explaining why one claim deserves greater weight—not merely noticing that two sources differ.

8. Distinguish useful evidence from a convincing argument

A persuasive source can reveal attitudes without proving its claims about reality.

For example:

A reformer’s comparison with slavery reveals the strength of the moral campaign against child labour. Whether it accurately describes factory conditions must still be assessed through the details provided and relevant context.

Similarly, an alleged quotation from another person inside a source is reported evidence, not automatically independent corroboration.

This distinction prevents you from treating forceful language as proof.

9. Write a conclusion that weighs, rather than counts

Avoid:

“Three sources support the statement and one challenges it, so the statement is correct.”

Instead, answer:

How far do the sources support the statement?
Which evidence carries the greatest weight?
Why does it outweigh—or qualify—the opposing evidence?

Illustrative conclusion, if supported by the actual extracts:

Overall, the sources support the view that factory reform served the wider public interest to a considerable extent. Evidence of harm to children establishes a strong social case, while the account of maintaining output with shorter hours challenges the claim that reform necessarily damaged prosperity. Nevertheless, experience in one mill cannot establish the effects across the entire industry, so concerns about wages and competitiveness are weakened rather than completely disproved.

The judgement explains why the supporting case is stronger and how far the conclusion can reasonably extend.

10. Know the mark progression

Level	Marks	Main achievement
1	1–5	Mainly describes sources or writes about the topic without using them effectively.
2	6–10	Uses sources to support or challenge the statement.
3	11–15	Uses sources to support and challenge the statement.
4	16–20	Evaluates sources in context in relation to the statement.
5	21–25	Weighs the evidence to reach a supported judgement about how far the sources support the statement.

Balance gets you beyond a one-sided answer; evaluation and weighing develop the higher-level response.

Before you finish, check:

Have I used all four sources?
Have I explained evidence supporting and challenging the statement?
Have I linked every point to the exact question?
Have I evaluated specific claims rather than applied generic labels?
Have I used context to test the evidence?
Does my conclusion explain which evidence is stronger and why?

Paper 1(b): Model Answer and Why It Scores Well

Question:

Read all of the sources. How far do the sources show that factory reform was in the wider public interest? [25]

This question comes from Cambridge History 9489/11, May/June 2024. The answer below is a teaching model designed to demonstrate Level 5 skills.

The model answer

Source A challenges the statement by predicting that restrictions on working hours would damage profits, wages and competitiveness. This connects employers’ interests to those of workers and consumers: if regulation threatened employment and purchasing power, its consequences would extend beyond factory owners. However, the argument assumes that shorter hours necessarily mean lower output. This reflects contemporary resistance to state interference in industry, but that assumption needs testing rather than accepting simply because the speaker presents it confidently. As a parliamentary speech concerning proposed legislation, the source seeks to influence a decision. It carries weight as an explanation of possible economic risks, but does not demonstrate that those risks would inevitably materialise.

Source B supports reform by describing physical mistreatment and suggesting that exhausting factory work could encourage crime. The implication is that reform would protect children while benefiting society more broadly. Oastler’s position as a reform campaigner helps explain his emphasis on suffering and his use of a comparison with slavery. In the context of contemporary anti-slavery campaigning, this comparison could put moral pressure on his parliamentary audience. Its emotional force does not independently establish the accuracy of every allegation, especially since the slaveholder’s remarks are reported by Oastler himself. Nevertheless, a campaigning purpose does not invalidate the evidence. His account provides a substantial case for protection, although it cannot establish how typical every example was across the industry.

Source C mainly challenges the statement by arguing that restrictions could deprive families of essential earnings. This is a serious qualification to the case for reform: protecting children from work would not automatically protect them from poverty. Greg’s reliance on young apprentices gives him practical knowledge but also a financial interest in continued child employment. His account should therefore be treated cautiously as an assessment of reform’s overall consequences. His language expresses fears rather than providing a systematic demonstration that affected families became worse off. Significantly, however, B also recognises families’ dependence on children’s earnings. This agreement across opposing perspectives strengthens the concern about household income. C also acknowledges excessive physical demands, giving some support to the need for protection despite its predominantly critical position.

Source D provides the strongest challenge to the assumption underlying A’s economic argument. The owner reports maintaining production and costs after reducing hours, alongside improved worker wellbeing. This suggests that protecting workers and preserving prosperity could be compatible. The distinction between observed results and future intentions matters: his proposed further reduction is not yet evidence of another successful outcome. His practical experience nevertheless carries more weight against claims of unavoidable production losses than prediction alone. There are limits: this is one establishment, and its inclusion in an inspector’s report may reflect selection of evidence favourable to regulation. The inspectorate created under the 1833 Factory Act had reason to examine and explain reform’s operation. Official publication therefore does not make the experience universally representative, but neither does possible selection erase its significance as a counterexample.

Overall, the sources support the statement to a considerable extent. B establishes the social case for intervention, while D gives practical evidence that shorter hours need not undermine economic performance. Together, these address both welfare and prosperity. The objections should not be dismissed, especially the concern about family income recognised in both B and C. However, A’s prediction of inevitable economic harm is weakened by D, while C does not conclusively establish that regulation generally worsened children’s lives. The strongest conclusion is that reform could serve the wider public interest, although its benefits depended on implementation and could be unevenly distributed.

Why this answer scores well

1. It answers the exact question throughout

The answer repeatedly considers the wider public interest: children’s welfare, family incomes, employment, consumers and production.

It does not assume that either higher profits or shorter hours automatically benefited everyone. Instead, it examines how benefits and costs could extend across society.

What students should copy: after explaining evidence, ask, “What does this establish about the statement?”

2. It uses all four sources and develops both sides

Source	Contribution to the argument
A	Explains the economic case against restrictions.
B	Establishes the social and moral case for protection.
C	Raises the problem of family income while acknowledging excessive demands on children.
D	Tests the assumption that shorter hours necessarily damage production.

The answer recognises that C can contribute to both sides without misrepresenting its overall opposition.

3. It evaluates specific claims

The evaluation explains what each source can reasonably establish:

A offers predictions whose assumptions need testing.
B’s campaigning purpose helps explain its presentation without automatically invalidating its evidence.
C combines relevant experience with an economic interest.
D provides practical evidence, but from a limited setting.

What students should copy: finish evaluation with its consequence for the argument. Do not stop at identifying the author or purpose.

4. It makes sources interact

Two connections strengthen the judgement:

B and C agree about dependence on children’s earnings, despite their different positions. This makes the concern harder to dismiss.
D challenges A’s assumption about hours and output, giving a reason to prefer practical evidence over an unsupported prediction.

The answer also recognises the limits of these connections. One successful example weakens a universal claim; it does not establish that every factory would achieve the same result.

5. It distinguishes evidence from prediction

The answer separates:

What an author fears might happen.
What an author reports happening.
What an author intends to do next.

This prevents it from treating a prediction or proposed policy as a demonstrated result.

6. Its conclusion weighs the evidence

The conclusion does not count how many sources support each side. It explains why the combined welfare and practical economic evidence is stronger, while retaining the qualification about household income.

This is central to Level 5: reaching a supported judgement by weighing the sources’ evidence.

The structure to remember

For each source: explain its argument → support it with source detail → evaluate the evidence → explain its weight.

In the conclusion: decide how far → identify the strongest evidence → explain why it outweighs the opposing case.