Final answer:
Secondary sources analyze and interpret primary sources, providing valuable context but not new evidence for historical research.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the statement, 'A secondary source is a good place to find new evidence about a historical topic,' the answer is false. Secondary sources, such as biographies, scholarly articles, and museum curator blog posts, are valuable for understanding historical knowledge and providing context. They analyze and interpret primary sources, which are original materials from the time under study. However, for new evidence, one would generally turn to primary sources like government documents, letters, and photographs. These are firsthand accounts that provide the most direct link to the past. Secondary sources synthesize these accounts and offer insights, not new evidence.