Which option separates cause and consequence?

Evidence check: contemporary should be explained before judging consequences. is the best answer. It fits Wider world depth assessment requirements within Paper 1 Section B source-analysis requirements and directly supports Analyse and evaluate a contemporary source in the context of the selected wider-world depth study. 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 contemporary 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 Analyse and evaluate a contemporary source in the context of the selected wider-world depth study. 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.