Mary Lynn Rampolla, A Pocket Guide to Writing in History.
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 always clear-cut and simple? Explain.
According to R., do primary sources always "tell" the truth? Explain. How can historians evaluate the quality of their sources (R suggests three ways)?
According to R, do all secondary sources agree? Why not, and how can historians evaluate the quality of other historians' work?