Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: Triple Alliance should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Part one: The causes of the First World War within BA Conflict and tension: the First World War, 1894-1918 and directly supports Study the Alliance System, including the Triple Alliance, Franco-Russian Alliance, Entente relations, Moroccan crises and Balkan crises and their effects on international. 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 Triple Alliance should be explained before. 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 B: Wider world depth studies and uses the same evidence base as Study the Alliance System, including the Triple Alliance, Franco-Russian Alliance, Entente relations, Moroccan crises and Balkan crises and their effects on international. 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.