When you compare a source like Wikipedia to two other authoritative academic sources, you are checking the reliability of your sources
When you compare authoritative academic sources with sites like Wikipedia you are evaluating if you can trust the information and facts in the sources, you are looking if it is true information or just opinion, checking the reliability of the sources.
"One action is a cause, which leads to another action that is the effect of the first action."
Answer:
all I know is that the answer is for sure not "Both foreseeable and accurate"
Explanation:
I just took the test and got it wrong
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.
