avident Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 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? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 B:All the factual information presented in a straightforward mannerInclude statistics/illustrations/diagrams/whatever hereDon'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.Show historical opinions/debate--different interpretationsThe actual analysis of your informationSignificance of the topic in historical contextCriticize 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. 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leepsyle Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Also don't mention anything in your analysis that would introduce new info not listed in the summary of evidence. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henza Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 B:All the factual information presented in a straightforward mannerInclude statistics/illustrations/diagrams/whatever hereDon'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.Show historical opinions/debate--different interpretationsThe actual analysis of your informationSignificance of the topic in historical contextCriticize 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... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 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. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.