How do you effectively respond to an interpretation question?

In order to do so, you first need to break down the view of the Historian. This can seem daunting, but if you follow the steps of: highlighting their overarching view, highlighting smaller elements that they hone in on in their view (such as Henry 8th's want to be with Anne Boleyn as reasoning behind an overarching view of his break with Rome being a personal over a political matter), and highlighting how they convey this view (i.e. through a metaphor). Then, you need to have one paragraph dedicated to strengths of the view/what makes it more convincing, and then a paragraph highlighting weaknesses in the view/what makes it less convincing. Whilst simultaneously analysing to what extent these strengths/weaknesses effect the overarching convincing nature of the view. Following this, you can subsequently bring your own judgement to the forefront as to how convincing this is in weighing up the pros and cons of the historians argument in your conclusion.