Study all the sources. Is there one source you think is more reliable than any of the others about conditions in Russia in 1900? Explain your answer.

Both sources tell me about the conditions in Moscow or near Moscow in 1990. However, in 1900, Russia was the largest country in the world. It stretched from the Pacific Ocean to Europe in the west. Moscow is only a small part of Russia, so the conditions in Moscow alone cannot represent the conditions in Russia.

As Source A was written by a factory worker, it may be biased because there was enmity between the wealthy and the peasants in the 1900s. S I Kanatchikov might had exaggerated about the poor conditions of the life of a factory worker, to gain sympathy from the public.

Source B, which describes a rich family's estate has an unknown writer. This is obviously not a first hand account and may be written by an enemy, as bad descriptions such as 'they were waited on, hand and foot' were given. Therefore, the description might not be true because there is no evidence.

Source C is written by the historian Orlando Figes in 1995. The information may not be accurate as there is a gap of 95 years between 1900 and 1995. Over the years, rumours may have been added to the actual conditions in Russia in 1900.

Source D is written by a British visitor to Russia in 1882. The British visitor was not a citizen of Russia, which means that he could only be in Russia for a short period of time. In this short period of time, he could not have had travelled throughout the entire Russia. He most probably had only been to a small part of Russia, and the condition of the rest of Russia may not be the same as the small part which he visited. The source is written in 1882. Between 1882 and 1900, conditions in Russia could had changed drastically because there is a period of eighteen years.

Therefore, I conclude that none of the four sources are reliable.