中文（繁體）
中文（简体）
English
A-Level History Past Papers & Drilling (Paper 1): Manchurian Crisis Source Comparison
TUTORZONE ORIGINAL DRILLING MOCK · CAMBRIDGE A-LEVEL HISTORY (9489) PAPER 1 HISTORICAL SOURCES
Written to the 9489 syllabus (2027-2029): Paper 1 Historical sources, 40 marks in 1 h 15 min, with part (a) worth 15 marks comparing two sources and part (b) 25 marks using all four sources and your own knowledge; 40% of the AS Level and 20% of the A Level. This mock uses the International option and the Manchurian crisis, with four invented sources and worked answers.
What is in Cambridge A-Level History (9489) Paper 1?
Direct answer: Paper 1 Historical sources, 40 marks in 1 h 15 min: part (a) 15 marks compares two sources and part (b) 25 marks uses all four sources with your own knowledge to discuss a statement; the four sources total no more than 600 words (at least three written, at most one visual); it is 40% of the AS Level and 20% of the A Level.
Assessment at a glance (2027)
| Component | Content | Weighting | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paper 1 (Historical sources, AS/AL) | 40 marks: one two-part sources question, part (a) 15 marks comparing two sources and part (b) 25 marks using all four with own knowledge; sources total no more than 600 words, at least three written | 40 · 40% AS / 20% A Level | 1 h 15 min |
| Paper 2 (Outline study, AS/AL) | 60 marks: two questions from one section, 30 marks each – part (a) 10 marks causal explanation, part (b) 20 marks given and alternative perspectives with a comparative judgement | 60 · 60% AS / 30% A Level | 1 h 45 min |
| Paper 3 (Historical interpretations, AL) | 40 marks: one question on a single extract of no more than 600 words; the author is not identified | 40 · 20% A Level | 1 h 15 min |
| Paper 4 (Depth study, AL) | 60 marks: two questions from a choice of three, 30 marks each; the command words are Assess and Evaluate and answers must set criteria | 60 · 30% A Level | 1 h 45 min |
Paper 1 technique: 40 marks in 1 h 15 min. Spend about 25 minutes on part (a), comparing similarities and differences and explaining them through provenance, date and standpoint, and about 45 minutes on part (b): first how the sources support the statement, then their limits and other explanations, judged with your own knowledge. In a comparison question write about both sources, never a summary of one.
How this paper was built
This is a TutorZone original drilling mock: the question and four sources follow the Cambridge 9484 Paper 1 format (40 marks in 1 h 15 min, sources totalling no more than 600 words with at least three written) and are our own, not a Cambridge past paper or source booklet; the authors and provenance of the sources are fictional.
The historical events and dates are standard, well-documented facts, and the vote and chronology figures were recomputed programmatically.
Pacing
| Section | Marks | Suggested time | What to do first |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paper 1 (Historical sources, AS/AL) | 40 · 40% AS / 20% A Level | about 25 min on (a), 45 on (b) | check provenance before comparing |
| Paper 2 (Outline study, AS/AL) | 60 · 60% AS / 30% A Level | about 50 min per question | build the causal chain in (a) first |
| Paper 3 (Historical interpretations, AL) | 40 · 20% A Level | the full 75 minutes | identify the interpretation, then its approach and evidence |
| Paper 4 (Depth study, AL) | 60 · 30% A Level | about 50 min per question | establish criteria, then evaluate factor by factor |
How is the Manchurian crisis chronology calculated?
Direct answer: from the September 1931 incident to Japan’s withdrawal in March 1933 was 18 months, while Japan controlled the region within the first 5 months, so League reaction took about 3.6 times as long; and in February 1933 the Assembly adopted the report by 42 votes to 1 with 1 abstention, about 95.5% support.
Paper 1: sources question (2 parts, 40 marks)
Part (a) 15 marks compares Sources A and B and part (b) 25 marks uses all four sources with own knowledge; allow 1 h 15 min.
Question 1 (40 marks)
Question 1: historical sources (International option: international history, 1870-1939), 40 marks
Four invented extracts are set out below (authors and provenance are fictional, written for drilling), about 600 words in total, on the League of Nations and the Manchurian crisis of 1931-1933.
Source A (memoir of a diplomat, 1934, fictional): the debates at Geneva went on for months, yet no member was willing to put economic sanctions into practice.
Source B (newspaper editorial, 1933, fictional): many states were preoccupied with unemployment at home and the public cared little about distant Manchuria.
Source C (summary of a League commission report, 1932, fictional): the commission found Japan’s actions exceeded legitimate self-defence but noted that order in north-east China had long been unstable.
Source D (political cartoon, 1933, fictional): a uniformed giant knocks down blocks labelled ‘treaties’ while diplomats in evening dress take notes.
(a) Compare Sources A and B as evidence about why the League failed to stop aggression. (15 marks)
(b) Using all four sources and your own knowledge of the period, discuss how far they support the statement that ‘the League failed because its members lacked the will to enforce collective security’. (25 marks)
Extension drills: chronology and votes (2 questions, not part of the 40 marks)
Two extension items cover chronology and using source data; allow 10 minutes.
Question 1 (5 marks)
Extension Question 1: chronology calculation (5 marks, not part of the 40 marks)
From the incident in September 1931 to Japan’s withdrawal in March 1933 was 18 months, while Japan controlled the region within the first 5 months. Calculate the ratio to one decimal place.
Question 2 (5 marks)
Extension Question 2: using the sources (5 marks, not part of the 40 marks)
In February 1933 the Assembly adopted the commission’s report by 42 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. Calculate the supporting share of the valid votes to one decimal place.
How should a comparison answer be written?
Direct answer: state the similarities (both blame the member states themselves), then the differences (one looks at the diplomatic process at Geneva, the other at domestic unemployment and public apathy), explain them through provenance, date and standpoint (a diplomat’s memoir against a newspaper editorial) and finish with a short conclusion.
Paper 1 model answers
Question 1
(a) Similarities: both sources lay the blame on the member states themselves – Source A reports that no state would enforce economic sanctions and Source B that domestic problems absorbed governments – so both suggest political will rather than institutional design was the problem.
Differences: Source A looks at the diplomatic process at Geneva and emphasises delay and inaction, while Source B starts from domestic politics and public opinion, where unemployment and apathy made governments unwilling to take overseas risks. The levels differ: one is about decision-making, the other about national priorities. Context explains the difference: the Depression pushed economic recovery first, and League sanctions depended on members enforcing them. (15 marks)
(b) Supporting the statement: Sources A and B point directly to a lack of will, and Source D’s cartoon attacks note-taking diplomats rather than the rules, again suggesting inaction rather than institutional failure.
Qualifying the statement: Source C accepts that Japan exceeded self-defence but also notes local instability, which gave members room to disagree; institutional factors matter too, since League decisions needed unanimity, sanctions were enforced by members at will and the USA was not a member, which limited any economic pressure.
Own knowledge: after the Mukden incident in September 1931 the Council demanded withdrawal without a deadline; the commission was appointed in December 1931 and reported in October 1932; the Assembly adopted the report in February 1933 by 42 votes to 1 (about 95.5% support), and Japan announced its withdrawal in March 1933. From incident to withdrawal was about 18 months, while Japan controlled the region within the first 5 months, so the League took about 3.6 times as long to reach its conclusion as events took to unfold. This reflects weak will but also institutional design and the priority Britain and France gave to Europe.
Conclusion: the sources largely support the statement, but a full explanation needs the interaction of will, institutions and the international order. (25 marks)
Extension answers
Question 1
Ratio = 18 / 5 = 3.6. League reaction took about 3.6 times as long as events unfolded, which helps frame how quickly institutions reacted.
Question 2
Support = 42 / (42 + 1 + 1) x 100 = about 95.5%. Overwhelming endorsement without action shows the gap between condemnation and enforcement, a key contrast to draw in an answer.
How should the time be allocated?
Direct answer: 40 marks in 1 h 15 min: about 10 minutes reading the sources, 25 minutes on part (a) and 40 on part (b), leaving 5 minutes to check.
Where these marks are usually lost
| Mistake | What it looks like | What it costs | Instead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison about one source only | Summarising Source A | Both sources must be compared | at least two points each |
| Provenance and date ignored | Comparing content only | Explain differences through provenance, date and standpoint | Source C 1932 report vs Source A 1934 memoir |
| Part (b) supports only | Writing only in support | Add limits and other explanations, then judge | support plus limits plus judgement |
| Cartoon read as record | Treating Source D as proof of events | A visual source must be assessed for its satirical purpose | its value lies in its standpoint |
| Ratio inverted | Writing 5 / 18 = 0.3 | Divide the longer period by the shorter | 18 / 5 = 3.6 |
How to use this paper
First drill: parts (a) and (b) in 1 h 15 min.
Mark it: check that the comparison covers both sources and the evaluation includes limits and a judgement.
Second drill: redo three to seven days later and transfer the skills to a European or American option question.
What should I do after drilling this paper?
Direct answer: log comparisons that covered only one source, redo the paper in three to seven days, then drill Paper 2 Outline study and Paper 3 Historical interpretations, adding Paper 4 if you are taking the A Level.
FAQ
Is this a Cambridge past paper?
No. This is not a Cambridge past paper: the question and the four sources are TutorZone originals with fictional authors and provenance.
What is in Cambridge A-Level History 9489 Paper 1?
A historical sources question: four sources, at least three written and up to one visual, totalling no more than 600 words; part (a) 15 marks compares two sources and part (b) 25 marks uses all of them with own knowledge. It is 40 marks in 1 h 15 min, 40% of the AS Level and 20% of the A Level.
How do the three options differ?
The European option covers modern Europe from 1774 to 1924, the American option US history from 1820 to 1941 and the International option international history from 1870 to 1939; assessed topics rotate yearly, so check the prescribed rotation.
Should answers quote the sources?
Yes, quote key phrases as evidence for the comparison and use contextual knowledge to explain why similarities or differences arise, but avoid long copying.
Official references
| Resource | What to check |
|---|---|
| Cambridge A-Level History 9489 syllabus (2027-2029) | Confirm the question formats, marks and the prescribed topic rotation |
| Cambridge 9489 subject page with specimen papers | Download the specimen papers and marking grids for sources questions |
| https://www.tutorzone.com.hk/en-alevel-history-9489-paper-2-mock-2027/ | A-Level History Paper 2 Outline study drilling mock |
Related: practice area · · A-Level History 9489 drilling guidePaper 2 Outline study drilling mock · Paper 3 Historical interpretations drilling mock · Paper 4 Depth study drilling mock
Next step: find a tutor / register as a tutor
After drilling, the hard part is telling a conceptual error from a writing error. Tell us the year group, the school and your available times, and TutorZone will match you with a tutor who knows the HKEAA assessment requirements.
Demand for tutors in this subject is steady, and those who can explain the marking scheme and where marks are won are especially sought after. Register free; you pay only when a match succeeds.
