Inferences relating to the statement

Candidates were well prepared for this source-based question. The vast majority of candidates engaged with all three sources and attempted to relate them to the question being asked, which was very pleasing to see.

Most candidates ended up being placed in L2 or L3 for using the content of one, two or three of the sources in a valid way to address the question of whether the Dissolution has an entirely negative impact.

These comments included:

• supporting the statement through the use of Source A, which was evidence that the loss of the monasteries hurt the poor;

• using Source B to argue that the Dissolution negatively affected the monks who worked there;

• and using Source C to demonstrate that some people profited from the Dissolution because they gained wealth through taking monastic lands for themselves (alternatively, some candidates argued that C showed that local people were unhappy enough with the Dissolution to rebel over the issue, which suggested negative impact).

Most candidates did attempt to explain how the sources showed negative or positive impact, clearly answering the question, and this was very pleasing to see.

A smaller number of candidates than last year did not reach L3 because they picked out detail from the source(s) but did not relate the content to the statement or the question. The most frequent misconception related to Source C, with many candidates trying to argue that profiting was a negative impact because it took away wealth from the king.

Evaluation of Sources

The question also required candidates to consider how ‘convincing’ they found the sources in relation to the statement and this continues to be the most challenging area for candidates. Although most candidates did attempt evaluation, the bulk of attempts that were made fell back on simplistic comments about provenance, such as (with Source C), ‘it’s a government report so we can’t trust it.’

There were quite a lot of candidates who used the sources as a ‘springboard’ for their knowledge and flooded their responses with what they had learned about the Dissolution. While the range and depth of this knowledge was often impressive, rarely was it used to evaluate the source(s) as required by the question.

The most successful candidates examined the precise purpose, motivation or context of one or more of the sources, or cross-referred between sources, in order to address the question of how convincing they were as evidence about the statement.

• Typically, these candidates argued that: Source A was convincing because Aske’s views reflected many at the time, given that tens of thousands of people had taken part in the Pilgrimage of Grace (alternatively, some candidates argued that the source was made less convincing because Aske was trying in the speech to persuade other people to join in, or justify the rebellion itself, which meant he was likely exaggerating the Dissolution’s impact);

• that Source B was less convincing, either because they knew that the majority of monks and friars did find alternative employment, or were pensioned off, or because the Bishop’s assistant was clearly trying to gain sympathy for the monks from Cromwell, and was overstating their plight, e.g. ‘they must go a hundred miles.’;

• and that the example in Source C of people gaining wealth from the Dissolution was widespread, with others taking the lead and other materials from the buildings (where candidates had used the content of the source to argue that the Dissolution brought social unrest, they used the Pilgrimage of Grace, or Source A, to argue it was convincing).

These responses were rewarded at Levels 4 and 5