GCSE History Coursework

In: Coursework services

GCSE History Coursework

If you have GCSE history coursework due and do not know how to start, this article will help you with starting writing your coursework. As you already know, coursework should be written in accordance to specific format including introduction, main body and conclusion.

  • Introduction should have a clear thesis statement (the single sentence stating the main point of your GCSE history coursework)
  • Body is the longest section. Here you need to explore all sides of GCSE history coursework topic. Do not neglect the importance of having a well-developed detailed outline as it will help you structure your coursework better
  • Conclusion should offer a brief overview of the main points made in your GCSE history coursework

Of course, the above structure is much simplified and you need to ask your teacher about the specific format you must follow. Writing GCSE history coursework you will definitely need to use secondary and primary sources to support your conclusions and assumptions.  It is of primary importance to cite all sources used for GCSE history coursework writing properly both within the text and at the end of it. If you do not have enough time to complete GCSE history coursework or need individual assistance with writing, you may rely on our coursework writing services. Our writers are never late with delivery of completed paper and you will be satisfied with the quality of our work.

Moreover, you may read our free blog with numerous articles on writing. For example, you find an article on business coursework writing helpful or enjoy reading a free sample of Jane Eyre coursework !

GCSE History Coursework Sample

Edward Bennett Williams' success in winning acclamation as an architect of freedom and justice presumably derives from the use of the same skills through which he caused jurors to look at Jimmy Hoffa and Adam Clayton Powell and mistake them for the Cherubim and the Seraphim. Williams treats his readers as though they were members of a jury, and though we miss his celebrated voice and gestures, on the other hand we are not bothered by the frequent interruptions of the prosecutor. Williams' techniques are various. The first is the highly tendentious rendering of the factual situation. We have seen how he deployed the facts in the case of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. It is so elsewhere in the book. "There were no outcries," he sighs, "from the Liberals for the unhappy victims of the [Kefauver] investigation--and then it was the Liberals' turn, and the public was almost indifferent to the violation of their rights. Next came organized labor." Here is history making with verve: at a stroke we are informed, as confidently as that America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, that the congressional investigations of the 1950's were aimed not at Communists and pro-Communists and fellow travelers, but at Liberals! And then, cov ering his bets, he rushes forward to a yet more dazzling piece of historical impudence: the scrupulously, agonizingly fair investigation by Senator McClellan's anti-rackets committee should have brought "outcries" in behalf of the "unhappy victims" (instead it brought an attempt at remedial legislation in the Landrum-Griffin-Kennedy Bill).

"In May, 1958, a Cleveland industrialist named Cyrus Eaton made bold to criticize the FBI over a national television network. . ." "A Cleveland industrialist." That is Mr. Williams, introducing to the jury a man who happens to be a Communist Party-liner in international affairs, an adulator of Nikita Khrushchev, who on the occasion in question had attacked the FBI with the distinctive ferocity of a Communist Party hatchetman. The flotsam and jetsam of Williams' arguments wash up on the shores of reason in irreconcilable pieces, but on he goes, unperturbed. On adjoining pages he will tell us, 1): "I very much doubt whether any juror ever saw [ Joe Louis] in that packed courtroom, seated, and they always left before any spectator was permitted to leave his seat." And 2): "All of the jurors later attested that [ Joe Louis'] appearance at the trial was meaningless insofar as the outcome was concerned." How could the jurors attest to the impact Joe Louis had on them, if they did not even know he was there?