The correct answer to this open question is the following.
One of the “don’ts” in analyzing or evaluating a primary source is to avoid recreating the author’s experience of his society.
No, I don't agree with this statement because I consider that in order to truly understand the primary source, a good researcher has to understand the circumstance and the time in which the primary source was created.
This means, if it was during a war or a revolutionary period, the researcher has to understand and think as the author of the source did.
ANd I am clear using my words: understand. Not biasing the records, the facts, or misinterpret the situation, the context, or the facts.
A secondary source is most likely reliable and credible if it is written by someone who has a stable relation history in the field of the question.
And somewhat pertains to a more reliable source.
Hope this helps. c:
Answer:
The 19th amendment is important to the Constitution as it gave women the right to vote in 1920
