1. Evans notes (p. 1) that E.H. Carr made a clear distinction between 'chronicle' and 'history.' In your own words, what are the major differences to these two approaches to studying events, and why in your opinion) is history more important and/or valuable?
2. In section II (pp. 4-9), Evans traces the development of history as a discipline between c. 1960 and 2000. Underlying these changes is the constant fact that history deals with -- by definition -- what no longer exists and therefore can't be seen directly. In your opinion, does this fact weaken Carr's belief that history should be regarded as a science? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Finally, in section III (pp. 10-16) Evans outlines various ways in which history continues to reach out to and influence public opinion, outside the world of history books. In addition to these, suggest ONE other form or medium, in your own experience, that has promoted interest in or knowledge of past events.