Ask Question
1 February, 02:23

Why would a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source when analyzing a historian event

+5
Answers (1)
  1. 1 February, 03:56
    0
    The correct answer is alternative D: "To evaluate the perspective of a witness to the event."

    A Primary Source of information in this case would be documents, journals, articles, recording, manuscripts or other similar things that were created at the time of the events being analyzed, whereas a Secondary Source is about the same subject, but not from a source of the time of the events.

    For this reason, researchers would use a primary source instead of secondary source in order to evaluate the perspective of a witness to the event, or at least of someone who lived at the time the events occurred.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question ✅ “Why would a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source when analyzing a historian event ...” in 📘 History if you're in doubt about the correctness of the answers or there's no answer, then try to use the smart search and find answers to the similar questions.
Search for Other Answers