Final answer:
Primary sources offer an invaluable first-hand perspective on historical events, but they may also contain biases or be challenging to interpret without context. Secondary sources complement primary ones by providing analysis and broader historical context.
Step-by-step explanation:
The good thing about primary sources is that first-hand perspective is difficult to obtain. The con of these sources is that they may contain biases or be subject to misinterpretation.
Primary sources provide a direct window into the past, offering documents or objects created during the time period of study. They are considered highly valuable in historical research because of their proximity in time to the events under investigation. A primary source can include a variety of materials like diaries, letters, government documents, and even photographs or songs.
However, while primary sources are the closest connection to historical events, they do have drawbacks. They might reflect the author's biases, need context for proper interpretation, and potentially be incomplete. It can also be challenging to apply them without understanding the broader historical context, which is often provided by secondary sources that analyze and contextualize primary materials.