Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Lars is completing a history project about World War I. On the British government's National Archives website, he finds letters from American soldiers as well as documents written by museum curators and historians that give background information about the war, supported by primary sources from their archives' collections.
Which descriptions best characterize this information? Select three options.
a. outdated facts, b. credible sources, c. primary sources, d. biased information
, e. reasoned judgment
Answer:
b. credible sources
c. primary sources
e. reasoned judgment
Explanation:
Primary sources are documents that were made and built at the time the historic event they document is taking place. In that case, they can claim that the letters that American soldiers wrote during the First World War are a primary source.
A credible source is one that is written by an expert on a given subject, in addition, these sources have evidence that supports all the statements they present. When Lars uses historical sources written by curators and historians who used primary sources as evidence, he is using credible feints.
After doing this research, Lars will be able to draw conclusions about the first world war using these sources as evidence, thus making an easoned judgment.
Britain wanted control over the Suez Canal because it was the shortest naval route between Europe and Asia.
Answer:
b. Egypt and c. Syria
Explanation:
Egypt and Syria have been directly involved with the three major Arab-Israeli wars.
Answer:
The right answer is "Checks and Balances."
Explanation:
Congress holds the executive branch accountable; courts interpret and apply the laws, judges can revert administrative decisions or policies, for example, by declaring a law unconstitutional.
Answer:
C) The risk to succeed at a profit is worth it.
Explanation:
