IA History IA section D confusion

[deansa97]

Hi guys,

So lately I've been working on my History IA, my question is "What was the role of the CIA in the Chilean coup?" but I'm having some trouble with section D. Some examples online that apparently received 4/6, 5/6 and 6/6 for section D all seem to analyze the evidence but my teacher says we should talk about the reliability of each source and whether or not we can trust it. Which should I follow, so far I have noted that we/can can't trust a source but he says that should be the primary thing in section D. 

 

One side note, what does the criteria mean by "the significance of sources in section C"?

Thanks, this is pretty urgent so if you could please answer soon.

Thanks.

[Emmi]

Section D is primarily focused on analysis of the facts and information you found in Section B, but your teacher is right that you should talk a little bit about each of the sources that you evaluated and how reliable it is. It shouldn't take up a big part of your section D, but you should spend a few sentences talking about it. Spend most of the time talking about analysis, and the remaining bit about the sources.

 

You should be more specific than "we can/can't trust a source," why can't you trust this source? What limitations did you find in your Section C that impact its reliability? Similarly for why you can trust that source, what makes it so you can?

[deansa97]

Okay thanks (:

When talking about the significance of sources in C should I talk about why I chose them?

[Emmi]

You don't necessarily need to talk about why you chose them, but you should state how the sources you chose are important in your investigation. As an example, one of the sources I analyzed was a collection of letters between Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, which was crucial for my IA because it basically allowed me to analyze Joseph Stalin himself's motivations for his particular inaction in an event as described by Winston Churchill. I had to take into account some limitations with the source, though, but overall the source helped me reach a conclusion that I might not have been able to reach otherwise.

 

That's essentially what you do for discussing the significance of your sources from Part C, but make sure you focus on the source itself and why that source is important, and give examples why. Don't just say "it's significant because it's a primary source." So? What can we gain from that? How does this benefit your IA?