A historical fact can be checked in the period’s sources, while a present-day preference is what someone wishes today. SPM answers earn marks for facts and for judgements built on them, never for preferences.
This is the last lesson in the cluster on historical elections and representation. It protects the skills from the three earlier lessons from one habit: writing what feels right now.
Fact, judgement or opinion?
Sort each statement into one of three groups.
- Fact: can be checked in a source. “The Alliance won 51 of the 52 elected seats in 1955.”
- Judgement: a conclusion the facts support. “Voters had more say in 1955 than in 1948.”
- Preference: a view about what should be, with no period evidence. “It was unfair and they should have let everyone vote.”
Judgements belong in your answer when they rest on facts. Preferences stay out.
Worked example with an adapted passage
The following passage is adapted from published figures and mixed with opinions on purpose, to practise sorting 1 2.
“In 1955, voters elected 52 of the 98 council seats, and the Alliance won 51 of them. This was a glorious victory, and the opposition should have won more. Before the election, all 75 members of the council had been appointed.”
Question: Write what the passage shows about representation, using only what a historian can support.
- “Voters elected 52 of the 98 council seats, and the Alliance won 51” is a fact. Keep it.
- “This was a glorious victory” is a preference. Remove it or restate it.
- “The opposition should have won more” is a preference. Remove it.
- “Before the election, all 75 members had been appointed” is a fact. Keep it.
Rewrite: “Before 1955 all 75 council members had been appointed, but in 1955 voters elected 52 of 98, so representation widened. The Alliance won 51 of those 52 seats, which shows that most voters supported one coalition.”
The word “widened” is a judgement, and the facts support it.
The mistake that loses marks
The common slip is to add a modern view as if it were evidence: “The 1948 council was unfair because everyone should have a vote.” The marker asks where the period evidence is.
| Sentence | Type | In the answer? |
|---|---|---|
| “All 75 members were appointed in 1948” | Fact | Yes |
| “That was wrong” | Preference | No |
| “Representation was limited because all members were appointed” | Judgement with evidence | Yes |
The fix is to swap “wrong” or “unfair” for a description of what was limited and who was affected.
A test for each sentence
- Can I point to a line in the source for this? If yes, it is a fact.
- Does it follow from facts I have already written? If yes, it is a judgement.
- Does it use “should” or “unfair” with nothing to support it? If yes, it is a preference, so cut or rewrite it.
Logging sentences you cut helps you spot the habit. The mistake log and paper-error review gives you a place to record them.
Check yourself
Sort these, then rewrite the third: (a) “The Alliance won 51 of 52 elected seats in 1955.” (b) “Voters strongly supported the Alliance.” (c) “It was a terrible result for the opposition.”
Answer
(a) is a fact 1. (b) is a judgement, which is acceptable if facts support it. (c) is a preference.
Rewrite of (c): “The Alliance won 51 of the 52 elected seats, so the opposition won one 1.” It states the same point as a fact about the result.
What to study next
Test the whole cluster with the practice set on historical elections and representation. For a wider look at evidence use, read using evidence in KBAT responses.
If you want a teacher to sort your sentences with you, see online one-to-one Sejarah tuition.