Both sources contain information about the suffrage movement and give indications to the reasoning to the eventual granting of votes for women in 1918. However the both sources give two different indications to why votes were granted to women. To evaluate which source gives a more valuable reason different elements of the substance of the sources needs to be taken into account. Such as the author (Who wrote it), the tone, the audience it was intended for, and the time it was written.
Source A was written by the NUWSS (National Union of Women 's Suffrage Societies). The NUWSS was a none militant organisation, and not as extreme as their militant counterparts. This would indicate that the substance of the source is well informed and not driven …show more content…
The first women to be granted the vote were educated middle and upper class land owning women. Whereas the majority of women that worked the industries in the years of the war were primarily working class women. Complete suffrage would come later in 1928. This would suggest that the war and the roles of women during the war may not have been the primary factor for universal granting of women 's suffrage. This suggests that Source B could be a more valuable source.
The tone of the source also needs to be taken into consideration. The tone of Source A as it was written by the NUWSS more formal, with little emotional language. This would suggests that the Source is factual and is intended to be strictly informative. In comparison Source B had much more emotive and was very rhetorical in nature as it was written by Emmeline Pankhurst. This would suggest that source A is more accurate as it is more based and factual.
However Source A does have a hostile tone and makes subtle threats such as "It would be dangerous for parliament" The hostile undertones then suggest that the purpose of the Source wasn 't to give an accurate argument to why women should receive the vote but rather to threaten parliament in expanding the franchise. However this said Source A does provide evidence for their claims giving weight to the sources
Source A was written by the NUWSS (National Union of Women 's Suffrage Societies). The NUWSS was a none militant organisation, and not as extreme as their militant counterparts. This would indicate that the substance of the source is well informed and not driven …show more content…
The first women to be granted the vote were educated middle and upper class land owning women. Whereas the majority of women that worked the industries in the years of the war were primarily working class women. Complete suffrage would come later in 1928. This would suggest that the war and the roles of women during the war may not have been the primary factor for universal granting of women 's suffrage. This suggests that Source B could be a more valuable source.
The tone of the source also needs to be taken into consideration. The tone of Source A as it was written by the NUWSS more formal, with little emotional language. This would suggests that the Source is factual and is intended to be strictly informative. In comparison Source B had much more emotive and was very rhetorical in nature as it was written by Emmeline Pankhurst. This would suggest that source A is more accurate as it is more based and factual.
However Source A does have a hostile tone and makes subtle threats such as "It would be dangerous for parliament" The hostile undertones then suggest that the purpose of the Source wasn 't to give an accurate argument to why women should receive the vote but rather to threaten parliament in expanding the franchise. However this said Source A does provide evidence for their claims giving weight to the sources