Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: IAEA 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 the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including IAEA inspectors, WMD, the military campaign, western interests including oil, Iraqi and international opposition and. 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 IAEA 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 2003 invasion of Iraq, including IAEA inspectors, WMD, the military campaign, western interests including oil, Iraqi and international opposition and. 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.