Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: change should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Period study assessment requirements within Paper 1 Section A interpretation requirements and directly supports Explain how a group or development was affected by a key event or development using change and supporting knowledge. 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 change 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 Explain how a group or development was affected by a key event or development using change and supporting knowledge. 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.