Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
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. |
