Option A. The disadvantage that secondary sources have is that they are created by people who have never experienced the historical period they describe.
<h3>What is meant by secondary sources?</h3>
This is the term that is used to describe the data that are known to already be in existence. These are the types of data that can be gotten from journals or from large government data base.
These types of data are very unlike the primary data that the researcher has to source and create for himself. The primary data would be gotten directly from the field by the researcher who wants to carry out an experiment to determine a phenomenon.
Read more on secondary data here: brainly.com/question/14806486
#SPJ1
Complete question
Which of the following describes a disadvantage secondary sources have compared to primary sources? A.They are created by people who have never experienced the historical period they describe. B.They are extremely rare and much harder for historians to locate. C.They do not rely on historical evidence to support their conclusions. D.They focus too closely on a single piece of evidence instead of providing summaries.
Answer:
That the Soviet Union had more nuclear missiles than the U.S.
Explanation:
Your statement is true. Anything else?
A <span>new settlement that keeps close ties to its homeland is called a colony.
In the olden times, England had many colonies, such as America, Australia, South African Republic, etc. which all kept close ties to their motherland which ruled over all of them.
</span>
I don't really understand the difference between these two, politically, culturally, and economically. All I know between the two is that the Roman Republic are for the citizens of Rome. However, the Roman Empire is ruled by a Emperors. Now, the connotations of emperors are considered bad I think. But isn't Marcus Aurelius and Augustus very good leaders. Does anyone have some insight on how Roman R and Roman E differ from each other.
