Answer:
Haiiiiiiiiiiii
Explanation:
thank you for the points:)
Stay safe there!
Have a great day/night! :D
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:
Where are the words?!?!?
^_^ hope this helps!! ^_^
Answer:
There are many benefits
Explanation:
Firstly, you become more trustworthy to others. Of course you can also gain more friends for whatever reason. You can make a big impact on the other person's life, and they can make one on yours.
There are cons to this, but I say go ahead and do it as you only live once so might as well make the most out of it.
iioiiiiwu4ituqi4tuqoiu4ituaoi4utioqu34iotuowi4toiw3
