Because information is always subjective, always - however unintentionally - biassed. If you and I have an argument today and write down the details of it tomorrow, the two accounts will be different, each giving more importance to his own opinions. A historian therefore - or a judge - likes to listen to both sides and, if possible, the accounts of other witnesses, before being able to write a balanced version of the story which migh be somewhere near the actual truth.
Answer this question… check to see if the information in the source is confirmed by other sources.
They use sources because it explains what happened and why. It also replaces paragraphs
It describes the event as it was experienced at the time. (APEX)
Historians have to overcome problems such as false reports of events and destroyed evidence. They can overcome these by source checking all evidence with other verified accounts. Some of the calculations can be incorrect and falsehood can be spread. So they have to act like a detective to make sure their information is correct. Ways to get information is through research of similar events. Also they may investigate the site where the event occurred such as in wars or natural disasters. So they have to discuss with other historian, because they all can have different points of view.
Which method will best help you determine whether or not a secondary source is conclusion is valid?
The source means where did you obtain the information you are using - you find that yourself when you copy down the information!
source
Primary sources are used commonly among historians. A primary source of information is an account from someone that was present at a certain time or event.
They do find reliable sources. Without that their work is invalid and wrong.
When you use your senses to obtain information, you are making an observation. This is a major part of science where you use your senses or the readings of instruments to directly acquire information from a primary source.
The best source of information on the Primanti Brothers is their official website. There is an about us section as well as about their food. Wikipedia is also another great place to obtain information.
wing intel
Historians would be wise to look for bias in a source because bias can influence the way the writer relayed the information. Sources free from bias are to be the most trusted.
A primary source is like a diary of somebody that has experienced something or the person them self (autobiography) A secondary source is when somebody has heard the story and retells it or writes about it. (biography) A primary source is the most reliable because information can be lost or changed by a secondary source so historians favor primary sources.
false
Because the books she wrote had a lot of errors and was a straight forward lie as well.
I prefer open source software.