How do you evaluate a historian's argument?

This is a skill which all A Level historians should be developing - you have to carry out critical analysis of historians' arguments both in the interpretations question in the exam and in your coursework.First, ensure that you fully understand the argument - be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking a counter argument is what the historian actually thinks. Then, start analysing the basis on which the historian has come to their judgment. Niall Ferguson is an interesting example to illustrate this. His controversial book Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order, should be treated with caution. While on face value, his argument that the British Empire can be seen as a force for good seems to be misguided, it has to be acknowledged that he comes to this judgment from a neo-liberal perspective and by examining the economic viability of British imperialism, not whether or not it can be justified from a humanitarian standpoint. Secondly, you should examine the evidence the historian has cited to come to their judgment, and consider whether there is evidence on the other side which should be given more weight. Ferguson presents plenty of evidence supporting the view that the free market ideology of the British Empire gave way to economic prosperity and flourishing international trade, but perhaps neglects the evidence that there was severe economic stagnation in some of the individual colonies, such as India. Finally, you should come to your own reasoned judgment. Remember to try and approach the historian's argument from a neutral standpoint. Distinguish between factual evidence and historical speculation. Consider why historians disagree on the subject, and decide which argument is best-justified.