Question

Which best describes the way historians consider letters and journals?
A.
primary source documents that are useful in the study of history
B.
reliable sources for the study of history only if from a named source
C.
secondary source documents that are useful in the study of history
D.
unreliable sources for the study of history because they are too subjective

Answer 1

thoughts?

I can eliminate B (anonymously published letters and journals can be, and have been, used as reliable sources of historical information) and D (letters and journals *are* subjective, but that doesn't make them worthless. they're useful for knowing what people think about things that were happening at the time, how they wrote, etc.)

so between A+C, are letters and journals considered primary or secondary sources?
if you're still confused, research the definition of primary and secondary sources