IA: Differences between Part B and D

[amillionlittlepieces]

I'm writing my practice IA on American isolationism during the interwar period, and in Part B, I'm planning to basically talk about the US government's actions (making isolationist-like laws, ignoring other agressive nations) and the attitude of the Americans during the interwar period. I'm not entirely sure how to approach part D, Analysis. I don't know how to analyze separately because I'm so used to summarizing and analyzing at the same time.

Can anyone give an example of what you would write in Part D .. say for example, if I talk about the laws that were made in Part B?

I don't get how to "analyze" those kinds of examples, other than just saying, these actions reflected their main ideology, etc.

Thank you!

[Jakebert]

Really, Part B is (what my teacher calls) "the stuff". So yes, it seems you have a good idea of part B, pretty much you sum up all the decisions that the US made that are relevant to your topic. Part D is the "therefore" element. Part D needs to explain WHY the evidence in part D answers the question. Your research question is KEY to Part D, your RQ is what will guide your analysis. Let's say for the sake of argument your RQ was: "To what extent did the United States domestic policy (you can't say isolationist, that's already analysis!) during the interwar years permit Hitler to gain a large advantage in world war two?"

So in part B you have all the laws and their effects, like "by passing this law, the US was forced to ignore Germany's actions".

Part D is: "By ignoring Germany's actions, and since the US had the power to stop Germany, AND by ignoring them Germany was able to annex Austria, the US is THEREFORE responsible for Germany's growth in power."

Really, try not to analyze in Part B. Just give "the stuff". Then, ask yourself "so what?". And put your answer is Part D.

I hope that helped, I'm sure someone else can explain it better.

[daintycake]

^ Agreed.

B = you've read your books, now tell your teacher what you've just read

D = your teacher and you now know the same background information, now tell your teacher what you think - answer your RQ!

I fell into the trap analyzing too many times in B, but I ended up doing B in bullet points so it seemed easier. That way it does look like a set of facts and you don't elaborate on points, so it's all narrative.

Gooooood luck!

[amillionlittlepieces]

Really, Part B is (what my teacher calls) "the stuff". So yes, it seems you have a good idea of part B, pretty much you sum up all the decisions that the US made that are relevant to your topic. Part D is the "therefore" element. Part D needs to explain WHY the evidence in part D answers the question. Your research question is KEY to Part D, your RQ is what will guide your analysis. Let's say for the sake of argument your RQ was: "To what extent did the United States domestic policy (you can't say isolationist, that's already analysis!) during the interwar years permit Hitler to gain a large advantage in world war two?"

So in part B you have all the laws and their effects, like "by passing this law, the US was forced to ignore Germany's actions".

Part D is: "By ignoring Germany's actions, and since the US had the power to stop Germany, AND by ignoring them Germany was able to annex Austria, the US is THEREFORE responsible for Germany's growth in power."

Really, try not to analyze in Part B. Just give "the stuff". Then, ask yourself "so what?". And put your answer is Part D.

I hope that helped, I'm sure someone else can explain it better.

Thanks for the advice. My essay seems so rigid

I came across another question: is it okay if I introduce new facts in Part D?

[Vvi]

No, don't introduce new facts in D. Stick to what you've already said in D and analyse consequences/results. Also mention conflicting historians points of view and decide which viewpoint is strongest.

E.g. Part B: Hitler was anti-semitic and passed a law titled ______ which meant all Jews had to wear a star on their clothes.

Part Hitler's anti-semitic laws led to______,causing________ according to the historian _________. However, _____ believes that his domestic policy was not anti-semitic and was in fact ___. Evidence for the second argument is weak, as ________. The first argument, however, is backed by _________ and is stronger factually as _____.

You can see that I made value judgments at the end there and didn't only narrate but also analysed the effects of events on the bigger picture.