Sources can seem daunting and difficult to understand, but an organised approach can allow you to analyse the source effectively and easily. Firstly, it is important to understand exactly what the question is asking - it sounds obvious but it is easy when under pressure to misjudge the focus of what you are being asked, mistaking ‘reasons’ for ‘effect’, or ‘effect’ for ‘importance’. It is also crucial to address the value of these sources to a historian, as the main purpose of the question is to assess your ability to analyse how the source is valuable or limited, rather than whether the source is factually correct. One you’ve fully understood the question, you should read and annotate the sources with the question in mind.
You should split your answer into two parts, as this makes it easier for you to write and for the examiner to read. The first part should focus on the provenance of the source, ie who wrote it, why they wrote it (eg their political beliefs), when it was written, and who was intended to read/hear it, and how these factors make the source valuable (is it the viewpoint of someone integral to the event, or does it provide an obviously prejudiced opinion due to a monetary influence, e.t.c). The next paragraph should then pick out the content of the source (what information the source provides in relation to the question), assessing this information against your prior knowledge of the event and against the influence of the provenance to make an ultimate assessment about the value of the source. You must be careful not to get caught up in whether the source is truthful, or in what the source fails to mentions, as the examiner is more interested in how you assess the information provided within the source.