how to write an argument in ext history hsc exam?

[rirerire]

for the after we identify what we agree and disagree with from the source given, are we just using our specific historians as 'examples' of why our argument is the right one?
and should I go into both sides of the argument- (eg 'to what extent is history objective?")
would I go into Hobsbawm's idea first and then use Jenkins views to show why Hobwbawm is wrong?

lastly, I keep hearing "you need to have your own opinion!!" for ext history... can anyone give insight into how I can actually show that I have an opinion about the topic/argument at hand aside from just using the evidence from historians.

[The Cat In The Hat]

for the after we identify what we agree and disagree with from the source given, are we just using our specific historians as 'examples' of why our argument is the right one?
and should I go into both sides of the argument- (eg 'to what extent is history objective?")
would I go into Hobsbawm's idea first and then use Jenkins views to show why Hobwbawm is wrong?

lastly, I keep hearing "you need to have your own opinion!!" for ext history... can anyone give insight into how I can actually show that I have an opinion about the topic/argument at hand aside from just using the evidence from historians.

RE having your own opinion -
I'm doing VCE Revolutions which says the same thing (though this mayn't mean it's the same!); what we get told to do is say for instance 'Smith posits that ___, whereas Jones ____. This is backed up by Jenkins' _____, which is clearly shown as reliable by ____.' This isn't a very good example, but I hope it shows what I'm trying to say?