Approaching the OPCVL: Skills and Advice

When working with secondary sources, usually sources from historian, this tends to be most true:

1. Origin, the role of the author and the value is what makes them an expert.

2. The purpose is their argument.

3. Content is their claim which supports their argument, and the limitation of the source is often other established claims you are aware of which this source did not address. Or a limitation of the content can be that the claim does not strongly support the argument.

When working with primary sources, usually sources from person from the historical time who wrote after the fact/event, this tends to be most true:

1. Origin, the role of the author and the value is what makes them an expert. The limitation is that it was written 5, or more years, after the event making it reasonable to conclude that smaller, but relevant, details and immediate emotions of the event were not well recalled (remembered) by the author. (If the other writes less than 10 years after the event, this is not likely to be a good limitation. In such cases, use the same approach as you would with a historian's secondary source mentioned above.

2. The purpose is their argument.

3. Content is their claim which supports their argument.

Common Errors by students

• What the origin is NOT: The author’s name. No one cares.

• The purpose is NEVER to “inform the people.” That does not mean anything.

• The fact that a source is primary, secondary, tertiary, a reference is never truly relevant to an answer. Don’t waste time with this. Please do not think this enhances your answer—it does not. Also, the answer is worse when you get it wrong. Again, if you get it right, it does not help. So why do this?

• The date of a source is almost never a problem or concern in history. (This is not true with other social sciences such as psychology, sociology, geography or economics.) However, the date of a source can be very relevant as a limitation if the source is recorded 10 or more years after the event. Oddly, if the source is published, or created, at the very moment of the event-- this fact makes for a weak value when mentioned by the student in an OPCVL response.

• Do not summarize the content. Instead, assess, or analyze, the strength or the weakness of the claim's relationship to the argument.

Sample Sources

Source A: Barbara Tuchman (American Historian) on the Bosnian Crisis

"The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908 was a spark in a powder keg. It inflamed nationalist sentiments in Serbia and Russia, sowing seeds of distrust and rivalry that would, five years later, contribute to the outbreak of the Great War."

 Source: Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August. Macmillan, 1962.

Source B: Sergei Sazonov (Russian Foreign Minister) on the Balkan Wars

"The flames of nationalism are spreading across the Balkans, and with them, the risk of a greater conflagration [greater fire]. Russia must support its Slavic brothers, but we must also tread carefully, for the alliances we hold are fragile, and the consequences of missteps could be catastrophic."

 Source: Sazonov, Sergei. Fateful Years, 1909-1916: The Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov. Jonathan Cape, 1928.

Question prompts

Question 1
With reference to the origin, purpose, and content of Source A, analyze its value and limitations for a historian studying the growth of tension in Europe from 1905 to 1914. In your response, use detailed evidence from Source A and your own knowledge, identifying any inconsistencies and revising or strengthening your claims where necessary. 

The patter of this answer is: V+O, P, C+L

Source A:

A value of Source A is the origin, an American Historian, studying the 1908 Bosnian Crisis, which identifies this author as an expert on the subject. The purpose is to argue that Bosnian Crisis led to WWI 5 years later. The content claims the 1908 crisis inflamed “nationalist sentiments” causing distrust in the region. However, a limitation is that the source does not address other relevant causes to WWI such as a) the Anglo German Rivalry which raised tensions between the UK and Germany, or b) the 1906 Naval Scare in which prompted the Anglo-Germany Naval Race, or c) the Moroccan Crises which caused Germany to be seen by Fance as the Kaiser attempted to seek the favor of the Sultan of Morocco, d) other relevant cause.

Question 2
With reference to the origin, purpose, and content of Source B analyze its value and limitations for a historian studying the growth of tension in Europe from 1905 to 1914. In your response, use detailed evidence from Source A and your own knowledge, identifying any inconsistencies and revising or strengthening your claims where necessary. 

The patter of this answer is: V+O+L, P, C

Source B:

A value of Source B is the origin, the Russian Foreign Minister during the time of the 1912-13 Balkan Wars, giving him unique and intimate knowledge of this event. However, a limitation of the source is that the author writes 15 years after the actual making it reasonable to conclude that smaller, but relevant, details and immediate emotions of the event were not well recalled (remembered) by the author. The purpose is to argue that “consequences of missteps” during the Balkan Wars were “catastrophic.” The content claims that nationalism spread like “flames” across the Balkans and that Russia felt a responsibility to “support its Slavic brother.”

Claims and Arguments: How to locate them in a source, most often

In the English language, and in academic writing, sources will often present the claim before the argument (but this will not apply to 100% of history sources).

Do claims come before the argument? Or does the argument come before claims? 

In most cases, claims come before the argument in a historical source or essay. The author typically presents the claims (evidence, reasons, or supporting points) first, and then uses those claims to build up to or support the argument (the main conclusion or overarching point).

Think of it like this:

1. Claims are like building blocks that the author presents to prove or justify the main point.

2. Once enough claims have been provided, the author then presents the argument — the overall conclusion that ties all the claims together.

Sometimes, though, an author might state the argument at the beginning, followed by the claims that support it, especially in an essay or speech. But generally, as you read, the claims work together to lead you toward understanding the argument.

In short:

• Claims usually come first to support or explain the argument.

• The argument comes later as the big conclusion based on those claims.

This structure helps build a logical, convincing case for the reader.

To identify arguments and claims in a historical source, follow these steps:

1. Understand the Argument:
   The argument is the main point or message the author is trying to communicate. Think of it as the overall takeaway or conclusion the writer wants you to agree with. To identify the argument, ask yourself, "What is the author trying to prove or persuade the reader to believe?" For example, in a source about the causes of World War I, the argument might be that economic competition was the main reason the war started.

2. Spot the Claims:
   Claims are the smaller statements or pieces of evidence the author uses to support their argument. These are the reasons, facts, or ideas that back up the overall message. To find the claims, look for specific points the author makes to prove their argument. For instance, if the argument is that economic factors caused World War I, claims might include examples of trade competition between nations or tensions over resources.

3. Differentiate Between Argument and Claims:
   To confidently tell the difference, remember this:

   • Argument = The big idea or overall conclusion. It’s like the roof of a house.

   • Claims = The supporting reasons or evidence. These are like the walls that hold up the roof. Each claim is a building block that supports the bigger argument.

4. Look for Keywords:
   Sometimes authors signal their argument with phrases like, "Therefore," "Thus," or "In conclusion." Claims often come after phrases like, "For example," "Because," or "This shows that." Recognizing these clues can help you separate the argument from the claims.

Examples

Claims

Argument

Source A: Barbara Tuchman (American Historian) on the Bosnian Crisis

"The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908 was a spark in a powder keg. It inflamed nationalist sentiments in Serbia and Russia, sowing seeds of distrust and rivalry that would, five years later, contribute to the outbreak of the Great War."

 Source: Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August. Macmillan, 1962.

Source B: Sergei Sazonov (Russian Foreign Minister) on the Balkan Wars

"The flames of 1nationalism are spreading across the Balkans, and with them, the risk of a greater conflagration [greater fire]. 2Russia must support its Slavic brothers, but we must also tread carefully, for the alliances we hold are fragile, and the consequences of missteps could be catastrophic."

 Source: Sazonov, Sergei. Fateful Years, 1909-1916: The Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov. Jonathan Cape, 1928.

In Source A, there is only one claim, "The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908 . . . inflamed nationalist sentiments in Serbia and Russia." The source's argument is "distrust and rivalry . . . five years later, contribute[d] to the outbreak of the Great War."

In Source B, there are actually two claims to support the author's argument. In an OPCVL answer, the requirement is to identify one claim. Both claims can be addressed by the student, but this is unnecessary. Unless the instructions are to "identify all claims," then only one claim is acceptable to qualify for maximum points, when done correctly. In Source B, the first claim is "nationalism [is] spreading across the Balkans" creating greater problems. (The "greater fire" is a metaphor for bigger problems.) The second claim is "Russia must support its Slavic brothers" in the Balkans. The source's argument is "consequences of missteps [in the Balkan Wars will be] catastrophic."