Which statement correctly distinguishes primary sources from secondary sources?

• A. Secondary sources interpret primary sources; primary sources are first-hand accounts.
• B. Primary sources interpret secondary sources; secondary sources are first-hand accounts.
• C. Primary sources are always unbiased; secondary sources are biased.
• D. Secondary sources are always more accurate than primary sources.

Answer: (A)

Primary sources provide raw, firsthand evidence from an event or time, like diaries, letters, official records, or photographs. Secondary sources, on the other hand, interpret or analyze those sources to explain, evaluate, or synthesize what happened. The statement that best distinguishes them is that secondary sources interpret primary sources while primary sources are first-hand accounts. This captures how historians use raw evidence to build explanations and context, rather than presenting it as analysis themselves.

Why the others don’t fit: it’s not accurate to say primary sources interpret secondary sources, since those first-hand materials are the raw evidence that others analyze. The idea that primary sources are always unbiased is false—bias can appear in any source. The claim that secondary sources are always more accurate is also incorrect—accuracy depends on how well the sources are researched and interpreted.