Question

question 1 of 10
a historical source should be considered unreliable if:

a. it uses primary sources that have never been seen before.

b. it contradicts conclusions that are generally accepted.

c. its creator was not a trained writer or historian.

d. its conclusions are greatly affected by personal bias.

Explanation:

• Option A: Using new primary sources can contribute to new historical insights, so this does not make a source unreliable.
• Option B: Contradicting generally accepted conclusions does not necessarily mean a source is unreliable; new evidence can challenge existing views.
• Option C: A creator not being a trained writer/historian does not automatically make their source unreliable, as non - experts can still provide valid accounts (e.g., diaries of ordinary people).
• Option D: Personal bias can distort the presentation of historical facts, leading to an unreliable source as it may not present an objective view of events.

Answer:

D. its conclusions are greatly affected by personal bias.