which of the following describes a reason historians might want to use a primary source to study an event a) it does not need to
be offically cited as a source b) it will be more reliable and than a primary source c) it described that the event as it was experienced at the time d) it summarizes another historian's eatlier research on the event
The correct answer is C. It described the event as it was experienced at the time
Explanation:
A primary source is any source including documents, paintings, manuscripts, diaries or recordings that are created at the moment the event occurs. On the other hand, a secondary source is a document that is usually created to report, summarize, analyze a primary source. In comparison to secondary sources, primary sources are created when the even occurs and are closer to it, but usually more subjective. In the case of historians wanting to study an event a primary source has multiple advantages, one of this is that the document would reflect the way the event was experienced as the source is created at the same time the event occurs or short after this, and reported by someone who was part of the event, experience it or witness it in a closer way which provides a closer perspective of the event.
Well history does show us some pretty cool heroes and some pretty bad villains, but some stories from history are not real for example Poseidon god of the see in Greek myth. Greek myth can be counted as part of history.
