Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: Saddam Hussein should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Part three: The Iraq War within BE Conflict and tension in the Gulf and Afghanistan, 1990-2009 and directly supports Study Saddam Hussein's regime, including treatment of Kurds and Shia Muslims, debate about links to Al-Qaeda, rogue-state reputation, religious divisions, international attitudes. 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 Saddam Hussein 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 Saddam Hussein's regime, including treatment of Kurds and Shia Muslims, debate about links to Al-Qaeda, rogue-state reputation, religious divisions, international attitudes. 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.