DBQ

The exercise is guided with 2 questions: a) is about usefulness of the sources, b) is an evaluative question based on key issues.

#Question a)

(8 pts, 45 min.)

Read the question carefully and underline the command words to know how you have to answer. The format is always: ‘How useful are Documents A and B for a historian… / in understanding…?’

Assess the usefulness and the limitations of the documents for understanding an aspect, documents taken separately, mostly based on the nature of those documents. Then, compare the documents (contradictions, complementary, documents A and B together).

You are not asked to give a presentation in depth in the introduction, since you gradually present them in the body with your analysis and interpretation. In question a) you need to show that you are able to interpret the documents with the help of your own knowledge.

#Step 1

On a rough paper, create three tables (one for A, one for B, one for both).

Document A	Usefulness	Limitations
Date: - When was it created? - Context? - Up-to-date to understand?	…	…
Author: - Who? - When did he live? - Role? - Audience, or intended audience?	…	…
Source: - Objective or subjective - Credibility? - Official/opponent? - Satirical?	…	…
Subject or message: - Issues proposed compared to our lesson - Ideas, content useful or not for studying/understanding - Missing parts? Why is it missing? - Precision/vagueness? - Partially adresses the issue of the lesson	…	…
For a map: - Projection? - Pertinence of data, scale, indicator, units…	…	…

Do the same for Document B. Then, for both documents, you can do as follows:

Aspect	Doc. A	Doc. B	Both Documents
Complementary	Does Doc. A provide information that complements Doc. B?	Does Doc. B complement the information in Doc. A?	What complementary insights do they provide together?
Contradictory	Does Doc. A present views that contradict Doc. B?	Does Doc. B present views that contradict Doc. A?	How do the documents differ in perspective or content?
What’s missing?	What is missing in Doc. A for a fuller understanding?	What is missing in Doc. B for a fuller understanding?	What relevant information is missing when analyzing both documents?

#Step 2

To plan your answer to question a), you can use the following structures for the body of your answer:

Documents useful or not

    - Doc. A
            ├── Doc. A usefulness
            └── Doc. A limitations

    - Doc. B
            ├── Doc. B usefulness
            └── Doc. B limitations

    - Doc A. & B.
            ├── Complementary and/or contradictory
            └── Missing elements

Or:

Documents useful or not

    - Usefulness
            ├── Doc. A 
            └── Doc. B

    - Limitations
            ├── Doc. A
            └── Doc. B

    - Doc A. & B.
            ├── Complementary and/or contradictory
            └── Missing elements

When you are ready, start writing. Your introduction must be short, as well as your conclusion (maximum 5-6 lines). Your conclusion should give a precise and supported answer.

#Question b)

(12 pts, 1 h.)

Question b) is an evaluative question based on the documents and your own knowledge. The format can be:

‘How far do you agree with…’
‘Discuss the validity of…’
‘To what extent is…’
‘Discuss…’

You need to provide a balanced answer based on the documents and your knowledge. Your points must be substantiated with details from the documents and what you know. Cite to prove your point, explain and provide evidence.

#Step 1

Use your own method to prepare and plan your complete and balanced answer. For example:

	Documents	Explanation + ‘Own Knowledge’
Yes	1. - ‘…… 2. - ‘…… 3. - ‘……	…… …… ……
No	1. - ‘…… 2. - ‘…… 3. - ‘……	…… …… ……

#Step 2

When you write your answer, make sure your points are clear and supported, using the PEEC or PEEL method:

Point
Explanation
Evidence (make sure you use the sources and your own knowledge)
Conclusion or Link

In your introduction (maximum 5-6 lines):

Create a hook
Rephrase the dual aspect of the issue
Define / periodise / locate / quickly contextualise
Briefly announce your plan

In your conclusion (maximum 5-6 lines)

Rephrase the dual aspect of the issue again
Answer precisely, clearly stating where your arguments led your reasoning