33.2k views
2 votes
Why would a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source when analyzing a historian event

User Cameron E
by
7.8k points

1 Answer

1 vote

Answer:

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.

User Epic Byte
by
8.3k points

No related questions found

Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.