Question

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

Answer 1

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".