A strong HSC History source response does what the question's verb asks, uses what the source actually shows, and judges how useful or reliable the source is for that specific question by weighing its origin, purpose, perspective, and content against your own knowledge. Then it reaches a clear judgement, in the question's words.
The syllabus builds that in. The Ancient and Modern History syllabuses define reliability in almost identical words, and the Modern History version ends:
A source is neither reliable nor unreliable in and of itself. It can only be judged reliable or useful for the question that is asked. Reliability requires an understanding of perspective.
I teach and mark Stage 6 History at school level, and I've taught the Cities of Vesuvius core. The source answer that loses marks is usually the one that describes the source and never decides how far it helps. Here's how to decide, using a letter by Pliny the Younger.
Where source questions sit in the 2026 HSC exams
If you're sitting the 2026 HSC, Modern History is on Friday 16 October and Ancient History is on Friday 23 October, both 9.25 am to 12.30 pm. You're on the Stage 6 syllabuses (2017), and so is next year's Year 12. The new Ancient History 11-12 and Modern History 11-12 syllabuses (2024) start with Year 11 in 2027, with their first HSC exams in 2028.
Both papers are 100 marks, 3 hours plus 5 minutes reading time, in 4 sections of 25 marks. Section I is the core: Cities of Vesuvius: Pompeii and Herculaneum in Ancient History, and Power and Authority in the Modern World 1919-1946 in Modern History. NESA's exam specifications say the same thing for both:
There will be three or four questions. This section will require candidates to analyse and interpret sources and apply their own knowledge. One question will be worth 10 to 15 marks.
You answer every question, and both 2025 papers said to "Allow about 45 minutes for this section": a little under 2 minutes a mark.
The 2025 source questions included:
- Ancient History: "What is the value of graffiti as evidence for life in Pompeii? Support your answer using Source A and your own knowledge." (4 marks)
- Modern History: "Account for the perspective of the writer in Source A." (4 marks) and "Assess the value and limitations of Source B for a historian studying Japan's ambitions in the Asia-Pacific." (6 marks)
Those were 2025's questions, not a pattern. In 2024, Modern History's Section I had 3 questions worth 4, 6, and 15 marks, and Question 2 asked students to contrast the value of 2 sources.
What the question words mean
From NESA's glossary of key words, word for word:
Account for: state reasons for, report on.
Explain: Relate cause and effect. Make the relationships between things evident. Provide why and/or how.
Assess: Make a judgement of value, quality, outcomes, results or size.
Evaluate: Make a judgement based on criteria. Determine the value of.
"How useful" isn't in the glossary; NESA treats "how" as a self-explanatory term, and it asks for a degree: very, partly, or only for some purposes. Whatever the wording, tie the source to the question's focus. In 2025, markers asked Ancient History students to improve by "providing an explanation by connecting 'the value of graffiti' with 'evidence of life in Pompeii'".
The syllabus glossary defines perspective as "A point of view from which historical events, problems and issues can be analysed", and reliability as "Consideration of the context, purpose, origin and audience of a source, in order to determine how accurately an area of historical study is represented". Usefulness isn't defined, but Year 11 students practise "analysing sources for their usefulness and reliability for the question(s) asked". NESA's exam clarifications for both courses add limitations, describing source work such as "identifying the limitations of a source, analysing sources for evidence, comparing/contrasting sources, and assessing the value of a source".
A method you can use in the exam
- Read the question before the source. Underline the verb and the focus ("for a historian studying ..."): that's what you're judging usefulness for.
- Read the source and its caption. Note what it shows, and pick 2 or 3 short phrases to quote.
- Ask 3 questions. Origin: who made it, when, and what type of source is it? Purpose and audience: why, and for whom? Perspective: whose point of view, shaped by what?
- Test the content against your own knowledge. What can you confirm? What's missing, and why?
- Write the judgement first, then prove it. Every sentence after the first supports or limits it, and the last sentence returns to it.
Step 5 is a PEEL paragraph with the judgement as your Point. Keep steps 1 to 4 to a couple of minutes.
A worked example: Pliny the Younger on Vesuvius
The source
Source A: Extract from a letter by Pliny the Younger to the historian Tacitus (Letters 6.16), describing the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79. Translated by William Melmoth, revised by F. C. T. Bosanquet.
A cloud, from which mountain was uncertain, at this distance (but it was found afterwards to come from Mount Vesuvius), was ascending, the appearance of which I cannot give you a more exact description of than by likening it to that of a pine tree, for it shot up to a great height in the form of a very tall trunk, which spread itself out at the top into a sort of branches ... I have faithfully related to you what I was either an eye-witness of myself or received immediately after the accident happened, and before there was time to vary the truth. ... for a letter is one thing, a history another; it is one thing writing to a friend, another thing writing to the public.
The own knowledge you'd bring: Pliny was 17, staying at Misenum, where his uncle and adoptive father, Pliny the Elder, commanded the Roman fleet. His uncle died in the eruption. Tacitus asked for an account of that death for a history he was writing, and Pliny replied in 2 letters (6.16 and 6.20), probably in late 106 or early 107.
The practice question
How useful is Source A for a historian studying the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79? Use Source A and your own knowledge. (6 marks)
The question and both answers are samples I wrote for this guide, not NESA material or student work.
A weaker answer (sample)
Source A is very useful for a historian studying the eruption of Mount Vesuvius because Pliny was an eyewitness who was there when it happened. He says the cloud looked like "a pine tree" and "shot up to a great height". He also says he has "faithfully related" what happened, so we can trust what he says. However, Pliny might be biased because he was writing about his uncle. Overall, Source A is useful and reliable.
"There" hides where Pliny actually was. "Faithfully related" is taken at face value, and "might be biased" never says how, or what it changes. There's no own knowledge, and the judgement is tacked on.
A stronger answer (sample)
Source A is very useful for understanding what the eruption looked like from a distance, but much less useful for what happened in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Pliny saw the cloud himself, aged 17, from Misenum across the bay, and his "very tall trunk" that "spread itself out at the top into a sort of branches" matches the column of ash and pumice that rained lapilli on Pompeii for hours before the pyroclastic flows arrived. Volcanologists still call this type of eruption "Plinian" after his description. The same origin limits the source. Misenum escaped the worst of the fall that buried the 2 towns, and the letter never names either of them, so Pliny can't tell us about the surges that killed the people of Herculaneum. He was also writing about 27 years later, to a historian who had asked about his uncle's death rather than the eruption, which may explain why he insists he has "faithfully related" events and separates "a letter" from "a history". Source A is therefore highly useful as an eyewitness record of the eruption column, but a historian needs archaeological and volcanological evidence to understand its effect on the towns.
Why the stronger answer works
- The first sentence is the judgement, with a degree, tied to the question's focus.
- It quotes short phrases and says what each shows. NESA's 2025 Ancient History feedback asked students to work on "incorporating short phrases from the sources, rather than describing or copying large parts of them".
- Origin and purpose change the judgement. Misenum is why the description is valuable and why it's limited. In 2025, better Modern History responses could "explain how the perspective, nature and purpose of the source affect its value".
- Own knowledge tests the content. Lapilli, pyroclastic flows, and "Plinian" confirm the description; the unnamed towns show its limits.
- The limitations are specific: distance, 27 years, and a request about one man, instead of "might be biased".
The same method in Modern History
Only the content changes. On 2025's Prince Konoye speech question, NESA's sample answer named the limits plainly ("It is propagandistic, aiming to present Japan's ambitions positively while hiding its true objectives"), then concluded: "Despite these limitations, the source remains valuable for a historian as it shows how Japan presented its ambitions in China to the public." NESA says sample answers aren't intended to be exemplary, but that's the move to copy: a source that's unreliable about Japan's real aims is still useful for showing how Japan justified them.
Check your answer before you move on
- Does my first sentence answer the question, in its words, with a judgement?
- Have I quoted short phrases and said what each one shows?
- Have I explained how origin, purpose, or perspective changes the source's usefulness for this question?
- Have I used own knowledge that isn't in the source, and named specific limitations?
- Does my last sentence come back to the judgement?
A no tells you which step to redo.
For practice answers, or a task where your school and task notification allow AI tools, MarkMate's essay checker gives detailed feedback on typed or handwritten work against the marking criteria, in Australian English. It's feedback, not a mark, and your teacher decides. Check your school's rules before you use any AI tool on work that counts.
Teaching this skill? Share this with your class.
Frequently asked questions
What's the difference between usefulness and reliability in History?
Reliability is how accurately a source represents what you're studying, judged by "the context, purpose, origin and audience of a source", in the syllabus's words. Usefulness is how much the source helps answer the specific question, so an unreliable source can still be useful.
How much own knowledge should I use in a source question?
NESA doesn't set a ratio, but its 2025 Modern History feedback asked students to "demonstrate historical knowledge beyond that provided in sources". A good habit is to test every point you take from the source against something you know.
Is a biased source unreliable?
Not automatically: the syllabus says "A source is neither reliable nor unreliable in and of itself." A one-sided source can be very useful for showing a perspective, as NESA's 2025 sample answer on the Konoye speech shows.