help

You would have to look at who wrote the document. I am going to use an example from APUSH because it is easy to do. Say you have a letter from Jefferson to Madison about the new constitution. You would be able to say his point of view would be antifederalist. Itjust depends on the context of the Document and the person who wrote it. Once you do a few, you will get better, maybe ask your teacher to give you some to take home and work on. And a Barron's Book would help ALOT!!!

That was a good example gurl gave but here's another, more modern version.

Look at the media. You have FOX that tends to offer a conserative point of view and MSNBC that tends to offer a liberal point of view. Same story, different angles.

Here's an example from the Barron's 2nd Ed.

Source: Mikahail Bakunin, nineteenth-century anarchist, "Principles of Revolution"
We recognize no other activity but the work of extermination, but we admit that the forms in which this activity whill show itself will be extremely varied - poison, the knife, the rope, etc. In this struggle, revolution sanctifies everything alike

The question was on methods leads take in order to begin a revolution.

From the point of view of this guy, he would do anything, even resort to violence in order to begin his revolution.

you need to state what caused the person to have that point of view, and how they affect his point of view
his job/past experience/culture/religion...
Also, explain the person's view point

its basically why he said this
could deal with:
education, gender, class values

talk about the tone, background info of the author, outside information to help

Hmmm... I had this question before, but then some girl in my class (who's probably going to get a 5 on this test :P) explained that the POV section is just a discussion of possible biast that could existed in a couple of articles. Basically, I took it as a "why the document said what it said". I personally, I would probably ask myself what timeperiod is it in? Who said it? What were his views on whatever was going on? Is it an exaggeration? Is it true?, etc.

Oh, and for an example could probably be.. One of my DBQs asks me to "compare and contrast how different relolutionaries have explained the need for change in their time." And one of the documents is by Mao Ze Dong of communist China regarding those who rebelled under his rule. In this article, he talks of the "millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support the revolution" as a "bastion of iron". So I could say something like...

Although the revolutionaries clearly had some way of displaying their goal, Mao Zedong (Document 2) provided information from an extremely one-sided view. He spoke of the people under his rule as an "iron bastion" however only presented the idea of attempting to smash them back. Mao Zedong was clearly an extremely totalitarian ruler, thus leading to the counter-revolution. Furthermore, he also fails to mention the goals of his own reforms, or even what the rebels accuse him of doing. Thus this point of view is extremely flawed in the sense that the information provided is likely either inaccurate, or one-sided.

I could pontificate on this a little more, but I think this should probably be enough. Good luck (I'm testing tomorrow too :P!!)