Source Analysis and Evaluation (SACE Stage 2 Modern History)

A 2-mark usefulness question. SACE wants a balanced judgement of usefulness linked to the nature of the source type, not a list of contents. Make one point about strength and one about limitation.

Strength (1 mark)

An obituary is useful because it provides a concise summary of the key events, achievements and significance of a person's life, often written by someone with knowledge of the subject and published soon after death, so it captures contemporary assessment.

Limitation (1 mark)

It is limited because obituaries are conventionally celebratory and selective. They tend to omit faults or controversy, may rely on incomplete information at the time of death, and reflect the perspective of the writer or publication, so they should be corroborated against other sources.

What earns the marks

One clear strength and one clear limitation, each tied to the nature of an obituary as a source type. A judgement phrase ("useful for an overview but partial") secures the top of the band.

A 4-mark evaluation question. Marks come from assessing each source's strengths and limitations with explicit reference to its nature (origin, type, purpose, perspective). Treat each source in turn.

Structure for the 4 marks (about one mark per judgement).

1. Source 4 strength. Identify the nature of the source (its type, author and purpose) and explain what makes it valuable, such as first-hand proximity, contemporary creation, or relevant expertise.

2. Source 4 limitation. Explain a weakness arising from that same nature: bias, narrow perspective, a purpose that shapes content, or limited scope.

3. Source 5 strength. Repeat for the second source, again grounding the judgement in its nature.

4. Source 5 limitation. Give a corresponding weakness.

What earns the marks. The phrase "with reference to the nature of the sources" is the key instruction. Generic comments ("it is biased") score poorly unless tied to why the specific type or origin produces that strength or limitation. A brief comparative note on which is more reliable for researching Mawson lifts the response.

A 7-mark synthesis question, the highest-value part of the sources analysis. It requires a sustained, evaluative response that uses all the sources as evidence for and against the statement, not a source-by-source description.

Build an argument

Take a position on whether scientific motivation was primary, then test it. Group sources that support a scientific quest (such as the expedition aims and scholarly accounts) against those suggesting other motives (national prestige, personal ambition, exploratory or commercial drives).

Evaluate, do not just cite

For each source used, weigh its reliability and perspective as you deploy it, because a source's origin affects how much weight its claim about motivation should carry. Cross-reference sources that corroborate or contradict one another.

Mark-by-mark logic

A top-band 7-mark answer states a clear contention, uses evidence from across all the sources, evaluates the reliability and perspective of those sources as part of the argument, weighs competing motivations, and reaches a justified conclusion. Mid-range answers summarise each source in turn without integrating them. The command word "evaluate" demands a weighed verdict, not a fence-sit.

A 2-mark question testing understanding of a source type's limitations. One mark for each clearly explained limitation of newspaper articles as historical evidence.

Limitation 1 (1 mark)

Newspapers may be biased or partisan. They are written for an audience and often reflect the political stance, ownership or nationality of the paper, so reporting on a contested event can be slanted or selective.

Limitation 2 (1 mark)

Newspapers report in the immediate aftermath with incomplete information. Early accounts can contain errors, rumour or propaganda, lack the benefit of hindsight, and may be shaped by wartime censorship or sensationalism.

What earns the marks

Two distinct, explained limitations tied to the nature of newspapers, not just "it is unreliable". Naming the mechanism (bias, haste, censorship, audience) is what secures each mark.

A 4-mark comparison question. Marks come from identifying specific points of agreement and disagreement between the two sources and reaching a judgement on the extent of support, using evidence quoted or paraphrased from each.

Method.

1. Points of support (about 2 marks). Identify specific claims in Source 5 that align with claims in Source 6, citing brief evidence from both to show the correspondence.

2. Points of difference (about 1 mark). Identify where the sources diverge, emphasise different aspects, or where one goes further than the other.

3. Judgement on extent (about 1 mark). Conclude clearly, for example "Source 5 supports Source 6 to a large but not complete extent", directly answering "to what extent".

What earns the marks. Specific cross-referenced evidence from both sources, not a separate summary of each. The explicit extent judgement is required by the command and is frequently where students lose the final mark.