Question

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

a.effective secondary source document
b.too biased for historical evidence
c.too focused for historical evidence
d.unreliable narrative source
e.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".