Mary Lynn Rampolla, A Pocket Guide to Writing in History, 5th edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006).
Pages 1-24.
How does Rampolla (R) define the subject of history study?
What three reasons does R give for studying history?
According to R, what is the purpose of this book?
According to R, what kinds of questions do historians ask?
What is the difference between "historical" questions and other kinds of inquiry?
What is R getting at by stressing "context," "causes," "continuity" and "change"?
How does R explain the reasons why historical interpretations change?
What is the difference between a "primary source" and a "secondary source"? Give explains of each.
Is the distinction between primary and secondary sources always clear-cut and simple? Explain.
According to R., do primary sources always "tell" the truth? Explain.
How can historians evaluate the quality of primary sources?
According to R, do all secondary sources agree? Why not?
How can historians evaluate the quality of other historians' work?