Answered

Which accurately describes a chart developed 20 years after a historical event?




effective secondary source document




too biased for historical evidence




too focused for historical evidence




unreliable narrative source




useful primary source document

Verified Answer :

sarcasmislife

It would be an "a.effective secondary source document" that best describes a chart developed 20 years after a historical event, since the information as had time to "settle"--although of course this doesn't automatically mean that the chart is "effective".

Related Questions