Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey all,

    I've got a history question to assess the short term significance of Andreas Vesalius.

    I'm confused on how I should structure this/go around it. Currently it's arguments which represent his short term significance as being prominent, then the arguments which follows represent his short term significance being not so big...

    I know, it's a failure of a structure. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    erm usually I try and find four main components or factors. I then use Point Explain Evidence and Link it back to question. Try and include a line or two presenting evidence which could contradict what your point is but then dismiss it some how.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by az1992)
    erm usually I try and find four main components or factors. I then use Point Explain Evidence and Link it back to question. Try and include a line or two presenting evidence which could contradict what your point is but then dismiss it some how.
    So is it wrong that I have about 8/9 factors? :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    So is it wrong that I have about 8/9 factors? :/
    No, it's not but i probably wouldn't write 8/9. Choose the best six, or the six that will suit your argument the most and use those. You could throw the others into the conclusion, maybe?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Corrosive Blossom)
    No, it's not but i probably wouldn't write 8/9. Choose the best six, or the six that will suit your argument the most and use those. You could throw the others into the conclusion, maybe?
    I've realised that I actually have 5/6 main factors but 9 paragraphs. The other paragraphs somewhat dispute the original factor (i.e. evaluates argument) to a certain extent. One paragraph is about something irrelevant to Vesalius' significance, but it is there because it could have possibly have a profound effect....so again, it's somewhat evaluating the overall answer.

    Also, how do I question the reliance of a primary source? I.e. what Vesalius actually said/wrote? I'm finding it hard to do this!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    Also, how do I question the reliance of a primary source? I.e. what Vesalius actually said/wrote? I'm finding it hard to do this!
    A level History?
    You question the reliance (= provenance) of the source by who its written/quoted by and when it was written and at what stage it was written.
    People in favour of the argument due to social class/rank/position/relation could have less reliance.
    People not in favour, that are critical, may also be less reliable if their critique.
    These two examples are due to the people having different aims and therefore different perspective and therefore different perception on what is right; what should happen; why it happened/or did not.
    But of course you need to contextualise it in A level.
    Weigh up the facts, the sources of others and put it up against these individuals. If the facts and the sources so not match then you know some reliability has to be question yes?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    A level History?
    You question the reliance (= provenance) of the source by who its written/quoted by and when it was written and at what stage it was written.
    People in favour of the argument due to social class/rank/position/relation could have less reliance.
    People not in favour, that are critical, may also be less reliable if their critique.
    These two examples are due to the people having different aims and therefore different perspective and therefore different perception on what is right; what should happen; why it happened/or did not.
    But of course you need to contextualise it in A level.
    Weigh up the facts, the sources of others and put it up against these individuals. If the facts and the sources so not match then you know some reliability has to be question yes?
    That is fantastic, thanks!
    What about the views of a historian? I.e. the contemporary sources...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    That is fantastic, thanks!
    What about the views of a historian? I.e. the contemporary sources...
    Hmm I thought you wanted to know about primary sources.
    Historiography is a bit shady. You can measure a historians point of view from how he/she writes it.
    From his or her writing, you may infer that he/she (for example) a Marxist Historian; a Revisionist Historian; a Traditionalist Historian; a Pro Empire Historian.
    There are other types, but what can be inferred about the historian comes from what he/she rights. Richard Evans for example, may be regarded as traditionalist in his book In Defence of History.
    Hope that helped.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Hmm I thought you wanted to know about primary sources.
    Historiography is a bit shady. You can measure a historians point of view from how he/she writes it.
    From his or her writing, you may infer that he/she (for example) a Marxist Historian; a Revisionist Historian; a Traditionalist Historian; a Pro Empire Historian.
    There are other types, but what can be inferred about the historian comes from what he/she rights. Richard Evans for example, may be regarded as traditionalist in his book In Defence of History.
    Hope that helped.
    Oh it's both I wanted to know about. I need to use both types in this coursework
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    Oh it's both I wanted to know about. I need to use both types in this coursework
    Well you do now..
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 17, 2010

University open days

  1. University of Bradford
    University-wide Postgraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Psychology Taster Tutorial Undergraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Campus Visit Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.