Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: impact should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Part one: Peacemaking within BB Conflict and tension: the inter-war years, 1918-1939 and directly supports Study the impact of the treaty and wider settlement, including Allied reactions, German objections and strengths and weaknesses of the settlement including. 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 impact 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 B: Wider world depth studies and uses the same evidence base as Study the impact of the treaty and wider settlement, including Allied reactions, German objections and strengths and weaknesses of the settlement including. 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.