So you’ve read a book. Big deal! Does that mean you know what really happened? If you answer “Yes,” then you don’t know much about history. Historians never trust a single source. There is always another way of presenting the evidence, and you don’t know if your single source has skewed the information to suit the author’s purposes. I give you George Bush’s argument to invade Iraq as example number 1. You can do better than George Bush.
What this job requires is observation and explanation of evidence. First, take either parts of the culture and/or specific events of the history of the book you are reading. Then, go out and find out if the book got it right. Finally, present your conclusion.
There are two necessary history skills to accomplishing this task:
one, distinguish between primary and secondary sources;
two, distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.
Explanation of accuracy for each event/element
Excellent Reasonable Huh?
Uses LOTS OF EVIDENCE from the sources to support opinion
Excellent Reasonable Evidence? What’s that?