A sourced explanation answers the question with a claim, backs it with specific evidence and links the evidence back to the question. It leaves out verdicts about who was morally right today. That rule keeps your answer on the past and on what the evidence can support.
This lesson draws together the skills in Core option B study pathways. The causation and supported explanation module goes deeper into building causal arguments.
How do you build the paragraph?
- Claim. Answer the question directly in one sentence.
- Evidence. Give a documented event, figure or attributed statement. Say whether it is fact, a source’s viewpoint or a historian’s interpretation.
- Link. Explain how the evidence supports the claim.
- Qualify. If the evidence is partial, say so in a short sentence.
- Check the language. Replace words that judge (shameful, evil, heroic) with words that describe (invaded, refused, proposed).
Worked example: why did the League fail over Abyssinia?
Question: Explain why the League of Nations did not stop Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia.
Facts to use. Italy invaded Abyssinia in October 1935. The League declared Italy the aggressor and applied sanctions, but these did not cover oil, coal or steel, and the Suez Canal stayed open. In December 1935 a plan associated with the British and French foreign ministers (the Hoare-Laval proposal) suggested giving Italy part of Abyssinia. Italian forces completed the conquest in 1936, and League sanctions were lifted that year.
Sample paragraph. “One reason the League did not stop Italy was that its sanctions were limited. The League applied sanctions in 1935 but they excluded oil, which Italian forces needed, and the Suez Canal remained open. This suggests that the main League members were unwilling to risk wider conflict. The Hoare-Laval proposal of December 1935 supports this reading because it offered Italy part of Abyssinia. However, the proposal was leaked and heavily criticised, so it shows what two governments considered, not a settled League policy.”
What it does well. It states facts with dates, marks the inference with “suggests”, and notes a limit. It does not say Britain and France were cowardly or that Italy was wicked.
What mistake do students make?
Mistaken paragraph: “The League was useless and the British and French were wrong to betray Abyssinia. Today we can see that appeasement was shameful.”
The student used present-day words as the argument. The correction is to replace them with description and evidence, and to explain the aims of the decision makers at the time. “Sanctions excluded oil, which limited their effect” is more precise and more persuasive.
Check yourself
1. Rewrite to remove judgement: “Mussolini’s evil invasion shamed the world.”
Show answer
“Italy invaded Abyssinia in October 1935, and the League declared Italy the aggressor.” The rewrite states the documented events only.
2. Add a qualifier to this claim: “Sanctions failed because oil was excluded.”
Show answer
For example: “Sanctions were weakened because oil was excluded, though other factors such as the Suez Canal remaining open also limited their effect.” The claim now recognises more than one factor.
3. Label as fact, source’s viewpoint or interpretation: “A British newspaper in 1935 called the sanctions half-hearted.”
Show answer
Source’s viewpoint. It shows how the writer judged the sanctions but does not prove how effective they were.
Where this leads next
Take the method into integrated practice, then reread the League of Nations unit with these paragraph steps in mind.
Judgement words slip into answers without warning. A teacher in online one-to-one History tuition can mark your paragraphs and point to each one.