Answering Interpretation Questions

Interpretation questions test Assessment Objective 4: analyse, evaluate and make substantiated judgements about interpretations, including how and why they differ. AO4 is worth 15% of the whole GCSE.

An interpretation is not a source from the time. AQA defines it as a deliberate construct created after the period to portray or make meaning of the past. It might be a historian's academic account, a school textbook, or a memoir written years later.

The examiner wants to know what the interpretation says about the issue in the question and whether that view holds up. Comment on what the interpretation includes, not on what it leaves out; long criticism of what is missing usually drifts off the question.

You will meet interpretation questions in two places: Paper 1 Section A (three questions on your period study) and Paper 2 Section B (one question on your British depth study).

Paper	Q	Wording	Marks	Both interpretations?
P1 §A	1	How does Interpretation B differ from A about…?	4	Yes
P1 §A	2	Why might the authors have a different interpretation about…?	4	Yes
P1 §A	3	Which interpretation gives the more convincing opinion about…?	8	Yes
P2 §B	1	How convincing is Interpretation A about…?	8	One

The two 4-mark questions are short and precise. The two 8-mark "convincing" questions need developed evaluation and a judgement. Notice that the Paper 1 questions all use two interpretations, while the Paper 2 question usually gives you one.

This question asks for one difference in content between the two interpretations. You are not being asked why they differ yet, or which is better, just to identify and explain a genuine difference in what they say about the issue.

Structure: state the difference, then support it with a short quotation or paraphrase from each interpretation.

Take a worked example on the Stresemann-era recovery (1924–1929). Suppose Interpretation A takes a positive view — the American loans of the Dawes Plan funded rebuilding, cut unemployment and brought prosperity — while Interpretation B is negative, arguing the recovery was shallow and dangerously dependent on short-term foreign debt. A top answer goes beyond simply saying they disagree: it explains that A highlights the benefits of the loans (money for rebuilding and jobs) whereas B highlights the long-term weaknesses (a recovery built on debt that had to be repaid), pinning down exactly what they differ about.

This question is about provenance. Interpretations differ because their authors were different people, writing for different reasons, at different times. Use those differences, plus your own knowledge, to explain the disagreement.

Ask yourself:

• Who wrote it? Their background, nationality, profession or beliefs.
• Why did they write it? Their purpose, and who they were writing for.
• When and where? The time and place of writing, and what they could know.

In the Stresemann example, a strong answer explains the disagreement through provenance: an author writing to celebrate the "golden years" of recovery will stress the prosperity and new jobs, whereas an author focused on Germany's finances — for instance a banker with inside knowledge of how much of the recovery rested on borrowed money — will stress the underlying debt. The disagreement flows from who each author was and why they wrote.

Both 8-mark questions work the same way. You evaluate how convincing an interpretation is by testing its content against your own contextual knowledge. On Paper 1 you must address both interpretations; on Paper 2 you focus on the one given.

The mark scheme progresses in four levels:

Level	What it shows	Marks
1	Basic: identifies features, mostly describes	1–2
2	Simple: simple evaluation using some knowledge	3–4
3	Developed: developed evaluation of at least two aspects, well supported	5–6
4	Complex: a substantiated judgement backed by reasoning and knowledge	7–8

The difference between Level 3 and Level 4 is the judgement. A Level 3 answer evaluates well but asserts its conclusion; a Level 4 answer substantiates the judgement, giving reasons rooted in the breadth or accuracy of the interpretation.

To answer well, pick a point the interpretation makes about the issue, confirm or challenge it with a precise fact you know, and explain how that makes it convincing. Do this for at least two aspects, then judge overall.

Use a Point–Evidence–Explain (PEE) approach and finish with a judgement.

1. Point:      "Interpretation A is convincing about X because it claims..."
2. Evidence:   quote/paraphrase the interpretation + your own accurate fact
3. Explain:    how the fact confirms (or challenges) the claim → so it is convincing
4. Repeat:     a second aspect of the interpretation, same PEE shape
5. Judgement:  overall, how convincing is it, and WHY (substantiate it)

For the Domesday Book interpretation (David Roffe, History Today, 2007), a Level 4 answer used detailed knowledge of the book's purposes (a record of taxes owed and a reassessment of landholding after 1066) and then judged the interpretation convincing by appreciating the broader argument about why William, twenty years after the Conquest, needed an accurate picture of the land he ruled. That link between detailed knowledge and a reasoned overall judgement is what lifts an answer to full marks.

1. Treating an interpretation like a source

Interpretations are written after the event. For the 'convincing' questions the focus is on the content and the argument, tested against your knowledge, not on provenance. (Provenance is the key to the 'why do they differ?' question, not the 'convincing' one.)

2. Only describing what the interpretation says

Copying or paraphrasing the interpretation with no evaluation stays at Level 1. Every point needs your own knowledge to confirm or challenge it.

3. Writing about what the interpretation leaves out

The mark scheme rewards analysis of what is in the interpretation. Long lists of what is missing usually become irrelevant to the question.

4. Answering only one interpretation on Paper 1

The Paper 1 Section A 'convincing' question requires both interpretations to reach Level 3 and above. Missing one caps your mark.

5. Asserting a judgement instead of substantiating it

"Interpretation A is more convincing" on its own is Level 3 at best. Give the reasons — the accuracy, range or broader argument — to reach Level 4.