We encourage you to follow the PEE system of writing paragraphs: Point Evidence Explanation Look at the 2 paragraphs below and annotate on them: Where have Points been made (either to say what it’s useful for or why it’s limited) Where the source has been quoted (Evidence) Where quotes have been Explained. Where Own Knowledge has been used in Explanation. Also: Where has the source provenance been referred to. Where has the impact of the source provenance been explained (i.e. where I have explained how the purpose has affected its content.) Where have connectives been used.

An example paragraph about the Indiana Jones, ‘Trenches of Hell’ movie with a clip about the Gas Attack. Made in 2000 by George Lucas and Lucasfilm.

The film ‘Trenches from Hell’ is useful for showing us how gas was used to terrify people before an attack. Despite the Germans releasing plenty of gas canisters, there was only panic in the trenches and only one man died from the gas. Indeed, in the first world war, once effective gas masks had been introduced, few men died from gas and only 4% of the total casualties were from gas. Therefore the source is particularly useful for showing the limitations, and principal uses of gas in world war one. However, the source has its limitations too; it was made in 2000 as an entertainment film, to make as much money as it can and therefore the director, George Lucas, would be likely to exaggerate parts of the film in order to make it more exciting and therefore encourage more people to watch it. Indeed, the man who died of the gas apparently did so in seconds, whereas phosgene gas, the quickest killer would take 12 hours to kill a man; therefore the actual impact of gas is clearly exaggerated in the film. Overall though, the film would seem to be a useful account of the development of gas in the first world war since it seems to portray the fear soldiers had of gas and the effectiveness of gas masks from 1916 which caused gas to have little effect other than to simply cause panic.

How useful is the following source about the use of Tanks in the First World War? Manchester Guardian (18th September 1916) The British army has struck the enemy another heavy blow north of the Somme. Attacking shortly after dawn yesterday morning on a front of more than six miles north-east from Combles, it now occupies a new strip of reconquered territory including three fortified villages behind the German third line and many local positions of great strength. Armoured cars working with the infantry were the great surprise of this attack. Sinister, formidable, and industrious, these novel machines pushed boldly into "No Man's Land," astonishing our soldiers no less than they frightened the enemy. The Germans were bolting before them like rabbits and others surrendering in terror, and the delightful story of the Bavarian colonel who was carted about for hours in the belly of one of them like Jonah in the whale, while his captors slew the men of his broken division.

The source is most useful for demonstrating how surprising the tanks were when they were first used in the Western Front. It states simply that the Germans ‘bolted like rabbits’ because they were so scared. Indeed, there was great secrecy surrounding the tank, they were even shipped to the front with the word ‘water tank’ stamped on the crates to disguise their true purpose and men were secretly recruited into the ‘motor machine gun corps’ initially. The fact that the source is from September 1916 also makes it useful since that was when tanks were first used at the Battle of the Somme and therefore gives a good impression of people’s reactions at the time when the British public too were curious. However, the source appeared in a British Newspaper and after DORA was introduced in August 1914 all British newspapers could only print positive messages about the Allies and horror stories about the Germans to raise morale as part of the British Propaganda campaign, therefore the content of the source will have been exaggerated to perhaps show that the tank was more effective that it actually was. Indeed, it states that they ‘boldy’ went with the infantry whereas on the first day, of the 28 which went into Battle, only 10 came back in working order, the rest having broken down. Overall, the sense of surprise when tanks were first used is communicated well, but the source is very limited since it fails to communicate the severe limitations of the tank itself.