The very first question of the Unit 1 paper will concern the general context of the particular topic addressed by the documents in the resource booklet. The idea here is to test your ability to predict what credibility issues might arise in a given situation, before you consider the testimony of specific witnesses to an event. You should be able to answer this question before you look at the resource booklet, and should not refer to specific documents in your answer.

Question Format

The question will be phrased something like this: “Consider sports commentaries in general. State three weaknesses in the credibility of such reporting.” There will be three marks available, one for each weakness correctly identified.

Strategy

The way to approach this question is to ask yourself three questions:

  1. Will reporters have access to evidence?
  2. Will reporters be able to interpret the evidence correctly?
  3. Will reporters report their interpretations accurately?

The first of these questions assesses how ability to see may be compromised. For example, reports on national security may be made less reliable by the difficulty in obtaining evidence, due to governments withholding information from the public to maintain security.

The second question raises issues to do with expertise. If I were to sit in on a banker’s fraud trial, I may not be able to give you an accurate assessment of the case, because I don’t know much about law and I know even less about banking; I wouldn’t be able to understand what’s going on. My lack of technical expertise would thus make me a less credible witness to the trial.

How the remaining criteria of credibility might apply–reputation, vested interest, and neutrality–is considered by the third question.

Sample Questions and Answers

Question:

Consider historical battle reports in general. State three weaknesses in the credibility of such reporting.

Answer:

  1. There may be difficulties in obtaining evidence, as it could have been destroyed by the passage of time.
  2. Cultural differences between the historian and the period studied may make it difficult to interpret the evidence.
  3. If the historian’s country was involved, then there may be a bias towards that side, resulting in a report that portrays it in a positive light.