The answer to that question is false
Answer:
They know an expert will provide the most accurate information.
Explanation:
They know an eyewitness will be free of personal bias. - This is not correct. Eyewitness reports of historical events will most likely be very much based on personal bias. Eyewitness reports will vary according to the cultural background of the person, where they were during events, their emotional state and stance towards the events, their background knowledge, their participation in the events, and many more.
They know a student who did research will be an accurate source. - This is not true. Historians can’t assume the student research will be the accurate source as students are only learning to do proper research and are expected to still make mistakes.
<u>They know an expert will provide the most accurate information. - This is the correct answer. When starting work, historians assume that experts who did research and examinations before them, and who put down information, are giving accurate accounts.</u> For example, if a historian’s work is based on the material artifact, he or she will assume that the archeologist before them made the best possible account into the explanation and background of the artifact.
They know an eyewitness report will always be truthful. - This is not true. As mentioned before, eyewitness reports are highly subjective, and therefore cannot be taken as true scientific findings.
Answer:
Rainsford won the wager. He fought Rainsford in the bedroom and Zaroff got fed to his own dogs. I suppose when Rainsford is in a tree and reflects that this is how an animal must feel to be hunted tips us off that he has a new attitude. The story, however, is so bizarre that the theme isn't dealt with in any depth. Perhaps Rainsford might think a little more about hunting defenseless animals in the future but I doubt he would start an animal rights movement.
<h3>
<em><u>Hope it will help you</u></em></h3>
Answer:
I'm pretty sure its self concept.
