Jump to content

History IA - Difference between Sections B and D


avident

Recommended Posts

I am currently in the process of writing my historical investigation, but got confused with the Sections B and D. What exactly is the difference between the summary of evidence and the analysis? I've read through the criteria, but I still don't exactly grasp the discrepancy.

Does B include the facts, figures, pre-happenings and consequences of the historical event? Is D for the causes and different interpretations thereof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

B:

  • All the factual information presented in a straightforward manner
  • Include statistics/illustrations/diagrams/whatever here
  • Don't write narratively!
  • Do NOT analyze at all!
  • Make sure all the info you present is pertinent. Don't give general information that's not needed.
  • Provide good supporting details. That's pretty key.
D:
  • Show historical opinions/debate--different interpretations
  • The actual analysis of your information
  • Significance of the topic in historical context
  • Criticize the historians you quote, but back up what you say.

And if you ignore how I go back and forth from informing you what each section contains and telling you how to write it, the advice is pretty sound, in my humble opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

B:

  • All the factual information presented in a straightforward manner
  • Include statistics/illustrations/diagrams/whatever here
  • Don't write narratively!
  • Do NOT analyze at all!
  • Make sure all the info you present is pertinent. Don't give general information that's not needed.
  • Provide good supporting details. That's pretty key.
D:
  • Show historical opinions/debate--different interpretations
  • The actual analysis of your information
  • Significance of the topic in historical context
  • Criticize the historians you quote, but back up what you say.

And if you ignore how I go back and forth from informing you what each section contains and telling you how to write it, the advice is pretty sound, in my humble opinion.

what do you mean by not writing narratively??

do u mean things like: then this happened. followed by this....

whats the difference between that and telling facts. isn't it essentially the same. even if you put your facts in chronological order, isnt that saying...this happened...then this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't clarify. I meant to put "don't write narratively" with "don't give general information that's not needed." You don't want to talk about background information too much. If you think you must explain something obscure-ish, then I guess it's okay, but don't talk about WW1 for a paragraph to intro to a specific thing about a battle. If you start doing a narrative here, it's considered a tangent. Plus you're wasting words big time.

One more thing. This isn't related to parts B and D explicitly, but use a variety of sources. And use many souces. Quality over quantity, but make sure you have more than two sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...