Question

Considering the historian's use of source material which interpretation is

most valid?
A: A historian cites a series of secret cartoons drawn while Germany
occupied France during World War II in order to draw conclusions
about an underground resistance movement.
B:A historian uses a book written about World War II in order to draw
conclusions about how the French were treated by German
soldiers
C:A historian uses an unidentified painting created in France during
World War Il in order to draw conclusions about the attitudes of
French citizens
D:A historian cites a 2012 blog post written by a German citizen in
order to draw conclusions about the fear the French felt during
World War IL

Answer 1

a

Step-by-step explanation:

i think

Answer 2

A: A historian cites a series of secret cartoons drawn while Germany

occupied France during World War II in order to draw conclusions

about an underground resistance movement.

Step-by-step explanation:

Historians have different types of material sources, this is a primary source, which would be something that was written or recorded in the time that the events were happening, or by interviewing someone that lived during the event, in this case the historian has a series of cartoon drawn while Germany occupied France, he can use them to draw conclusions about underground resistance by the French that tried to fight back the german occupation.