Photo AI
3 (a) Study Sources B and C - Edexcel - GCSE History - Question 3 - 2020 - Paper 1
Question 3
3 (a) Study Sources B and C. How useful are Sources B and C for an enquiry into the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan? Explain your answer, using Sources B a... show full transcript
Worked Solution & Example Answer:3 (a) Study Sources B and C - Edexcel - GCSE History - Question 3 - 2020 - Paper 1
Step 1
Study Sources B and C. How useful are Sources B and C for an enquiry into the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan?
Answer
Sources B and C provide valuable insights for understanding the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan.
Source B highlights significant industrial growth, showcasing statistics on production increases in iron and steel. However, it may present a somewhat optimistic view, potentially underestimating challenges such as shortages and poor living conditions faced by workers.
In contrast, Source C emphasizes the social impacts and struggles of the populace during this period. It suggests that while industrial outputs increased, the everyday lives of citizens remained challenging. This type of context is critical in evaluating the overall success of the Five-Year Plan, indicating that while quantitative measures might look favorable, qualitative aspects painted a different picture.
Overall, both sources serve distinct functions: one focusing on numerical achievements and the other on social realities. Thus, together they offer a more rounded perspective on the effectiveness of the Five-Year Plan.
Step 2
Study Interpretations 1 and 2. They give different views about the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan. What is the main difference between these views?
Answer
The main difference between Interpretations 1 and 2 lies in their emphasis on the outcomes of the first Five-Year Plan.
Interpretation 1 portrays a largely positive view, highlighting the rapid industrial growth and achievements in production. It suggests that the plan was successful in transforming the economy and boosting output significantly.
On the other hand, Interpretation 2 takes a more critical stance, focusing on the adverse effects on the populace and the neglect of social conditions. It argues that despite the increase in production, the quality of life for many worsened, creating a disparity between statistical success and lived reality.
Thus, while Interpretation 1 celebrates numerical achievements, Interpretation 2 calls attention to the human costs associated with the implementation of the plan.
Step 3
Suggest one reason why Interpretations 1 and 2 give different views about the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan.
Answer
One reason for the differing views in Interpretations 1 and 2 may be attributed to the focus of the authors.
Interpretation 1 may be derived from official reports or documents aiming to highlight the successes of the Five-Year Plan, reflecting a propagandist approach that emphasizes industrial metrics over human experiences.
In contrast, Interpretation 2 might come from voices critical of the government, seeking to expose the negative ramifications of rapid industrialization, such as labor exploitation and environmental degradation. This underlying bias shapes how each interpretation presents its argument, leading to their fundamentally contrasting views.
Step 4
How far do you agree with Interpretation 2 about the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan?
Answer
I largely agree with Interpretation 2 regarding the achievements of the first Five-Year Plan. While it is undeniable that the plan brought about impressive production increases, this quantitative success fails to account for the qualitative experiences of the working class.
The hardships faced during this period, such as poor living conditions, worker exploitation, and social unrest, underscore that the achievements outlined in statistical reports do not reflect the broader human cost associated with these industrial advancements. The emphasis on numbers can overshadow the struggles endured by ordinary citizens, raising critical questions about how success should be measured in such historical contexts.
In conclusion, I believe that while the first Five-Year Plan was a significant step towards industrialization, the lessons learned from Interpretation 2 reveal the importance of considering both statistical success and human impact.