AQA A Level History Paper 1 (options A to L) 7042/1C - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]

Do other people also find the breadth part of the course much worse?
I'm doing 1C (Tudors) and 2J (American Civil War).
I just think that the depth study is much more interesting because there is a lot of detail about events and people, and you can clearly follow the links between events. Meanwhile the breadth study involves studying a ton of small events without many specifics, and it just doesn't feel like I actually know the time period.
Although, maybe it's just because the Tudors are 400 years ago, and they had very little accurate recording of information.

Do other people also find the breadth part of the course much worse?
I'm doing 1C (Tudors) and 2J (American Civil War).
I just think that the depth study is much more interesting because there is a lot of detail about events and people, and you can clearly follow the links between events. Meanwhile the breadth study involves studying a ton of small events without many specifics, and it just doesn't feel like I actually know the time period.
Although, maybe it's just because the Tudors are 400 years ago, and they had very little accurate recording of information.

Does anyone have advice on how to structure an essay (with examples if possible)?
My teacher has taught me to outline and analyse each of my points and counter, evidence analyse etc three times, but another one of my friends has got a different planning structure and it's stressing me out LOL

1st para focus on religion- frequent changes under Edward were unpopular- prayer book rebellion, Mary burning damaged reputation and religious policy and Spanish marriage led to Wyatts- BUT rebellions not that threatening to state and influence of humanism spreading so already pressure for reform- can argue burnings were successful

Economy weakened by Somerset- debasement for wars etc- BUT both Northumberland and Mary started process of restoring finances + encouraged trade making England overall more secure and not in period of crisis/ crisis theory overlooks fact industrialisation in England as focuses on agrarian workers

Society- rising population reaching 3 million in 1550s- made worse by bad harvests and outbreak of sweating sickness- height of domestic crisis also in 1549 with Kett’s- widespread disorder in 25 counties- But ketts not threatening overall- London remained loyal to Crown + no threat to monarch security + 1552 attempts to address poverty made

Just following up again, wouldn't all that be outside the scope of religion? Like would it not be limited to E6, M & El religious stuff?

do you all think elizabeth would be the source question or is it more likely that it would be the mid tudors
edit: well extract question

do you all think elizabeth would be the source question or is it more likely that it would be the mid tudors

Mid Tudors is more likely -

It was Elizabeth in 2021

What I’ve generally been taught is for interpretations identify the argument do one para for convincing another for not convincing and then overall judgement.
Essays- always introduction where you state your main argument and it’s important not to contradict this in your main body. If the essay is a factors essay you always address the stated factor first and then 2 more (can do more if you have time) but need to have a strong argument and link all the points. If it’s not a factors essay so like ‘how far was there change’ you want 3 themes- for each theme you want points for and against your argument. Always start arguing against and then overrule it by arguing your point to make it convincing- so essentially you’ll end of with 6 paragraphs. Always do a conclusion summing up argument and not introducing any more points.

I have two textbooks - one is the Cambridge one from the old spec but it has more detailed info and is quite relevant so I use that one too. But I’ve also had a Tudor history obsession for about 7 years so I read books about them a lot haha. Dw about it now - honestly if you make up believable statistics they won’t know as there’s so many diff sources hahahha

We don’t do it like that. For the question I said above (would differ if question was not that) i do an intro stating our view then look at q through 3 themes. Then I do a for and against within each paragraph (so it’s technically 6 points and you use 2 bits of evidence each way).

then a conclusion

Is there likely to be a question on intellectual developments/ humanist and religious thought? its still on the spec but I haven't revised any of that

Is there likely to be a question on intellectual developments/ humanist and religious thought? its still on the spec but I haven't revised any of that

so if the question was there was a mid tudor crisis in terms of religion- you would state your opinion in your introduction (lets say you agree yes) and then you would write three paragraphs each arguing for and against the statement looking at 3 different themes within religion? then of course a conclusion. Interesting because I structure my essays that way for component 2 but for Tudors have been taught to do for, opposing and then for paragraphs.