Question

Given 2 interpretations, read each and pick out the topic of sources. Which of the interpretations agree with the statement below. P1 - Interpretation 1, viewpoint of historian, how far it agrees with topic. Author - who is writing it, consider date and where they live. Audience - who is it intended for, what would people take away from this? Perspective - is it biast? Does it make assumptions about an event. Always important to get info from the caption. P2 - Repeat with Int 2 Conclusion - How and why are they different, make a judgement. Consider the resources that each author could have had, if they were farther away from event they could have more resources but equally they do not have their own perspective and are relying on others for information.

Answer 1

To examine historical sources, consider the author, audience, intent, and context, and assess potential biases to understand perspectives. Review the background, biases, and resources of authors when comparing different interpretations.

Step-by-step explanation:

To evaluate the perspectives of historical sources, it is crucial to analyze the author, the audience, the intent, and the context in which the source was created. By understanding who created the source and why, we can gain insight into potential biases and interpretations. Primary sources provide firsthand evidence, but must be approached with scrutiny, considering the author's background, the historical context, and the intended audience. Secondary sources offer context and analysis, which can be biased based on the author's perspective. Rigorous methodology is applied to understand causation and interpretation in history without judgment and with openness to revision. This approach is essential for historical research or assessing the accuracy of information.

When comparing two interpretations, interpretation one should be evaluated based on the historian's viewpoint and how it aligns with the given statement. The author's background, the date and place of writing, the intended audience, and any possible biases or assumptions should all be considered. Similarly, this process is then repeated for interpretation two. In the conclusion, a judgment is made explaining the differences. The availability of resources to each author can affect their perspective, and historians relying on accounts of others may have less personal bias but also less firsthand experience.