Are quotes necessary? (1 Viewer)

[doublel]

My modern teacher had always told us that including historian quotes wasn't quite necessary and it is possible to get full marks without including any quotes. However with the exception of the personality section where quotes were needed due to the lack of supporting evidence in arguments.

So if someone could please clarify this? Would be helpful, thanks !

 

[asadass]

You should paraphrase historian's ideas and discuss how it affects your argument. There's no point in just 'name-dropping' or putting in quotes without explaining their relevance.

 

[Rectanglor]

If you read the notes from the marking centre, it often says that "Historiography was not necessary to gain full marks in this question".

 

[doublel]

If you read the notes from the marking centre, it often says that "Historiography was not necessary to gain full marks in this question".

Thanks ! greatly appreciated .

 

[Rectanglor]

Not a problem

 

[ocstew]

You should paraphrase historian's ideas and discuss how it affects your argument. There's no point in just 'name-dropping' or putting in quotes without explaining their relevance.

If you read the notes from the marking centre, it often says that "Historiography was not necessary to gain full marks in this question".

This. It's often easier to merely understand a historian's argument and point of view, and slot it into your essay, rather than learning quotes.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Although arguably many of the better responses do use historiography, it's a balance.

 

[jenslekman]

Although arguably many of the better responses do use historiography, it's a balance.

yep - in fact, pretty sure the marking notes say better responses "effectively" use historiography even though its not necessary.

 

[inJust]

You can state rank without it.