This set has ten original exercises on chronology, sources, causation, change and writing. They are ordered from easier to harder and carry no mark labels. Every case is invented, so you practise the skill without needing a particular period.
Use paper. Write full sentences for the explanation questions, and open each answer only when you have tried. The source-analysis self-check gives a structure you can reuse on any source.
The exercises
1. A town records these events: the market hall is built (1851), a fire destroys the old quay (1849), a railway station opens (1856), and the new quay is finished (1850). Put them in order and say which event came between the fire and the railway.
Show answer
Order: fire (1849), new quay finished (1850), market hall built (1851), railway station opens (1856).
Between the fire and the railway station came the new quay and the market hall. The easiest check is to sort by year first, then read the list aloud to make sure each event can follow the one before it.
2. A student says: “The quay was rebuilt, so the fire was the cause of the railway.” Does the order of events prove this?
Show answer
No. The fire came in 1849 and the station in 1856, so the fire came first. Coming first does not make it a cause. You would need evidence linking them, such as a record showing the railway was planned to replace the lost quay.
A sequence is not a causal explanation. You can write: “The fire came before the railway, but the order alone does not show a link.”
3. Source A is a harbour ledger: ships entering the port were 40 in 1860 and 25 in 1861. Calculate the fall as a number and as a percentage.
Show answer
The fall is 40 − 25 = 15 ships.
As a percentage of the starting figure: 15 ÷ 40 = 0.375, which is 37.5 per cent.
Check: 37.5 per cent of 40 is 0.375 × 40 = 15. The ledger is evidence that entries fell, but it does not say why.
4. Source B is a letter from a shipowner saying “the harbour tax has ruined us”. Label each part: the ledger figures (Source A), the letter’s claim, and a later historian’s statement that “the tax rise was the main reason for the fall”. Use fact, viewpoint or interpretation.
Show answer
- Ledger figures: fact. They record how many ships entered.
- The shipowner’s claim: viewpoint. It comes from someone who paid the tax and had a reason to complain.
- The historian’s statement: interpretation. It is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and it needs support.
The habit to build is labelling before you use. A viewpoint should be tested, and an interpretation should be checked against the evidence it rests on.
5. Using Source B, write two sentences: one that only describes it and one that makes an inference.
Show answer
Description: “The letter says the tax has ruined the shipowner.”
Inference: “The shipowner believed the tax was harming his business, which suggests the tax was a live complaint among traders at the time.”
The inference goes beyond the words, and it stays cautious: “suggests”, not “proves”. It also avoids claiming that the tax really did cause the fall.
6. The letter was written to the town council asking for the tax to be cut. How does that provenance change how you use it?
Show answer
The audience and purpose matter. A letter asking for a cut has a reason to stress hardship, so its claim that the tax “ruined” him may be overstated. That makes it weaker as proof of the scale of harm.
It stays useful for another claim: that traders were lobbying the council. Usefulness depends on the question, so always say which claim you are testing.
7. Source C is a notice from the council, dated 1860, raising the quay tax. Source B is undated but mentions “last year’s rise”. Does Source C corroborate Source B? Explain.
Show answer
Partly. Source C shows a tax rise in 1860, which fits the letter’s reference to a rise, so they agree on the existence of a rise. But B is undated, so you cannot yet say whether “last year’s rise” is the 1860 one.
Corroboration needs independent agreement on the same point. Here you would need the date of the letter before you could claim it. A careful answer names what agrees and what is still unknown.
8. Give three possible causes of the fall in ships entering in 1861: the tax rise, a silting channel and a competing port. Explain how you would decide which mattered most, using only qualified language.
Show answer
Start by asking what evidence each one has, and when it began. The tax rise may fit the timing if it came before the fall. A silting channel is a long-term cause that would build over years. A competing port could be another.
A qualified answer: “The tax rise may have contributed to the fall, but the silting channel made it harder for ships to enter over a longer period, so it was probably a long-term condition and the tax a trigger.” It compares timing and evidence, and it does not claim a single certain cause.
9. The town had 12,000 residents in 1850 and 9,000 in 1870. The market still met every Tuesday throughout. Write one change and one continuity, including the percentage change in population.
Show answer
Change: population fell by 12,000 − 9,000 = 3,000, which is 3,000 ÷ 12,000 = 0.25, or 25 per cent.
Continuity: the market still met every Tuesday.
A complete answer adds a judgement, such as “the population change was large, while the market day stayed the same, so daily life changed less than the figures suggest”. That is an interpretation, and it must say it rests on only two pieces of evidence.
10. Write a short paragraph that answers: “How far was the tax rise responsible for the decline of Marlow Bay?” Use the invented evidence above, in about five sentences.
Show answer
A model structure, not a script:
“The tax rise was one reason for the decline, but the evidence does not show that it was the main one. The ledger shows ships entering fell by 37.5 per cent between 1860 and 1861, and a shipowner’s letter blames the tax, although a letter asking for a cut may overstate the harm. The council notice confirms a rise in 1860, which fits the letter but leaves the timing uncertain because the letter is undated. A silting channel could have reduced traffic over a longer period, so the tax may have been a trigger on top of a long-term condition. The evidence supports the tax as a contributing factor, but more dated evidence would be needed to rank it above the other causes.”
Notice the pattern: claim, support, limit, link back to the question.
If you got these wrong
| What went wrong | What to revisit |
|---|---|
| Events out of order, or order treated as cause (1, 2) | Chronology and historical context |
| Calculation or percentage slips (3, 9) | Redo with the starting figure as the base, then check by multiplying back |
| Labels mixed up, or viewpoint used as fact (4, 6) | Evidence and source interpretation |
| Description where an inference was needed (5) | Evidence and source interpretation |
| Corroboration claimed without dates or independence (7) | Evidence and source interpretation |
| Single-cause answers, or no qualified language (8) | Causation and supported explanation |
| Only changes listed, or no judgement (9) | Change, continuity and comparison |
| Paragraph has claims without support (10) | Writing and answer development |
What next?
Once these feel secure, work on the pathway for your own option and depth study. The study route guide shows how to confirm it, and the revision guide shows how to plan from the gaps your answers reveal.
If you would like a teacher to read your written answers, see our online one-to-one History tuition. The terminology guide separates the terms these exercises use.