Source G When the fire broke out on the eighth floor, we ran for the doors but found them locked. The foremen always locked the doors during working hours t...

This question asks you to evaluate the reliability of a factory worker's testimony about working conditions in American factories in the early twentieth century. To reach the top level (6-7 marks), assess content accuracy, provenance, and limitations.

Content analysis - is the source accurate?

The testimony provides specific, verifiable details about a factory fire:

• Locked doors during working hours - to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks or stealing fabric scraps.
• A collapsed fire escape that killed workers who tried to use it.
• Elevator operators making rescue trips, limited to twelve people per trip.
• The survivor escaped by climbing to the roof, where university students from an adjacent building helped workers cross over.
• 146 workers killed, most of them young immigrant women.

These details match the historical record of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire (March 25, 1911) in New York City's Greenwich Village. The locked doors, inadequate fire escape, and death toll of 146 are all documented facts. The factory employed mostly young women, many of them Jewish and Italian immigrants.

Provenance - who is speaking, and why?

• Strength: The source is testimony from a survivor and eyewitness who was present during the fire. Firsthand accounts provide details that no other type of source can offer - the locked doors, the collapsing fire escape, the escape via the roof.
• Strength: The testimony was given before a state investigating commission, an official inquiry. Witnesses before official investigations understand that their statements may be checked against other evidence, which encourages accuracy.
• Limitation: As a worker testifying about conditions that killed her colleagues, the witness has a strong emotional and political motivation to emphasize the worst aspects of factory conditions in order to push for reform. Her account may be shaped by grief and anger.
• Limitation: Eyewitness testimony during traumatic events can be unreliable in specific details (times, sequences, exact numbers) even when the overall account is truthful.

What does the source leave out?

• The source describes conditions at one factory. While similar conditions existed in many industries during the Progressive Era (long hours, unsafe buildings, child labor, no fire safety regulations), not all factories were identical, and the Triangle fire was exceptional in its death toll.
• It does not mention the factory owners' defense. Max Blanck and Isaac Harris (the owners) argued that they had complied with existing building regulations and were acquitted of manslaughter charges in December 1911. The inadequacy of the regulations, rather than deliberate law-breaking, was partly responsible.
• It does not describe the consequences of the fire. The Triangle fire became a catalyst for major reform: the New York Factory Investigating Commission (before which this testimony was given) produced over thirty new labor laws improving fire safety, building codes, and working conditions. The fire also strengthened the labor union movement and contributed to the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU).

Reaching a judgment:

The source is broadly reliable as evidence about dangerous working conditions in early twentieth-century American factories. The specific details about the Triangle fire are verified by multiple independent sources, and the survivor's firsthand account provides credible evidence of the conditions that made the disaster possible (locked doors, inadequate fire escapes, overcrowded workrooms). However, it represents the workers' perspective and naturally emphasizes the most shocking aspects. It should be read alongside other evidence (factory inspection reports, building records, the owners' defense) for a complete picture.

Exam technique: Eyewitness testimony is powerful evidence but requires careful evaluation. Its strength is direct experience; its limitation is that personal involvement can shape what the witness notices, remembers, and emphasizes. For reliability questions, acknowledge both dimensions rather than simply declaring the source reliable or unreliable.