Answer:
Answer in Explanation
Explanation:
As a historian, using sources would better help understand the past. Using mostly primary sources would better help understand the past as you were there or you get information from someone who was involved in the concept. Before we get into this, a primary source provides firs-handed accounts of an event or time period and are mostly considered very useful and best when explaining a period of time where something great happened. A secondary source describes a summary or discussed information originally presented by another source. That means that the words and what actually happened, could have been altered in a way to best fit the story or change the readers perspective. While using a primary source or secondary source, like a newspaper, it's somewhat difficult to tell which source it is, so you have to trust your gut. Now, as a historian, you would much rather use a primary source since it provides first-hand detail of what happened and what you'd want to share. Overall, it may be said that using a primary source when you're working with something with time, or an event, would be best; rather than a secondary source.
Answer:
The author provides background information so that the reader knows what caused the death of the well-known Lieutenant
Colonel Custer
Explanation:
B gives the best summary of the paragraph
In the beginning, Lizabeth acted childish, immature, and didn't know about the world outside her neighborhood. During the story, she realized that the world isn't as kind as forgiving as she thought. At the end, she is more mature, understanding, and a forgiving woman. She changed because she realized that she needed to grow up. Hope this helps.
<span><span>absorb
</span><span>devour
</span><span>drink
</span><span>eat
</span><span>gobble
</span><span>gulp
</span><span>ingest
</span></span><span><span>inhale
</span><span>wash down</span></span>
