Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: Papen should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Part two: Germany and the Depression within AB Germany, 1890-1945: Democracy and dictatorship and directly supports Study the failure of Weimar democracy, including election results, Papen, Hindenburg and Hitler's appointment as Chancellor. Check this by using evidence, provenance, date, event, individual, policy, consequence; do not choose a distractor simply because it sounds historical.

The correct option is Papen should be explained before judging. This MCQ is about Which option separates cause and consequence, not just general recall. The correct option works because it matches the period context of Paper 1 Section A: Period studies and uses the same evidence base as Study the failure of Weimar democracy, including election results, Papen, Hindenburg and Hitler's appointment as Chancellor. The rejected options are weaker: 1) A source comment with no provenance.; 2) A long-term cause treated as a result.; 3) A similarity presented as a difference.. To decide between them, students should identify, support, test, reject the option against chronology, evidence and the learning objective, then keep evidence separate from opinion and interpretation.