Question

A historical source can be deemed unreliable if the author appears to unfairly favorite a particular side or point of view in this case the source is?

Answer 1

A historical source can be deemed unreliable if the author appears to unfairly favor a particular side or point of view. This is because the author may be biased and may not be presenting the facts in an objective manner.

Step-by-step explanation:

For example, a biography of a famous person written by a close friend or family member may be biased in favor of that person. The author may not be willing to include any negative information about the person, even if it is true. This can lead to a distorted view of the person's life and accomplishments.

Another example of a biased historical source is a newspaper article written by a reporter who is a supporter of a particular political party. The reporter may be more likely to report on stories that support the party's views and to ignore or downplay stories that do not. This can lead to a biased view of the news and can make it difficult for readers to get a balanced understanding of the issues.

It is important to be aware of the potential for bias when evaluating historical sources. By being aware of the author's background and motivations, readers can be more critical of the information they are presented with and can make better judgments about its reliability.

Answer 2

The historical source can be deemed unreliable if the author appears to unfairly favor a particular side or point of view. In this case, the source is biased.

When assessing the reliability of a historical source, it's important to consider if the author has a bias towards a specific perspective or agenda. A biased source may present information in a way that supports their own viewpoint while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts it.