Question

which statement best describes why historians might want to use a primary source to study an event?
a) it summarizes another historians research on the event.
b) it will be more reliable and credible than a primary source.
c) it does not need to be officially cited as a source
d)it describes the event as it was experienced at the time.

Answer 1

Answer:

b. it will be more reliable and credible than a primary source..

Hope it useful

Answer 2

ANSWER:

Historians might want to use a primary source to study an event is (d) it "describes the event" as it was experienced at the time.

EXPLANATION:

    A primary source is the source which indicates documents and paintings, diaries, Or some recordings that creates a event. So the next is secondary source which is mainly a document which is a created report which is made from summaries of primary source.

   The primary and secondary sources are created when the event is to be happened soon. Historians wait for the study related events which is made from the primary source, the source have many advantages, so the documents are very useful to us.