Question

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

A. To find out how people currently remember the event

B. To view a collection of different opinions on the event

C. To provide a scholarly perspective on the event

D. To evaluate the perspective of a witness to the event

Answer 1

D. A primary source comes from someone who has actually witnessed the event, while a secondary source is not based off of firsthand experience.

Answer 2

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.