term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
Are primary sources more reliable than secondary sources?
No. Primary and secondary sources are different by nature. One type isn't automatically more reliable than the other.
Why is it ineffective to write that "Source E is useful for understanding_____________".
All sources are useful for historians. You shouldn't waste time stating this fact without explaining the reason it is useful. This is more effective: "Source E is useful for understanding ________________ because ___________________.
What is meant by perspective?
Perspective means the point of view that the source is written from. This can be based on nationality, gender, audience, time it was published, etc. A perspective should not be referred to as "good" or "bad". It isn't our role to judge, but to understand.
What is the formula for explaining the usefulness of a source?
Perspective +reliability = usefulness.
Understanding a source's usefulness requires you to understand its perspective and reliability. Understanding a source's perspective allows you to determine it's reliability. You can then evaluate what a source has to offer a historian. Even a highly biased and unreliable source can be extremely useful if an historian understands the limitations of using this source.
Why is it better to analyse each source separately rather than simultaneously?
When you analyse sources simultaneously it is easier to use the perspective + reliability = usefulness formula effectively. When you analyse the sources simultaneously it is easy to fall into comparing the sources, which is an ineffective way to answer the question.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!