Ahistorian studying the roman empire reads a letter written by a roman soldier stationed in great britain in 70 ce. which of the following best describes the letter? a. biased source b. primary source c. secondary source d. historiographical source

The answer is B, Primary Source.

Why? A letter written in the past is an actual historical artifact and is a personal account of something the person experienced. A account of something a person actually experienced is a primary source about whatever events are described.

A biased source would be an account that is from a source that has an incentive to distort history.

A secondary source would be a work that describes or analyzes a primary source. For example, an account written about the letter by me or you would be a secondary source.

A Historigraphical source is a history text that is informed by both primary source and secondary sources.

special interest groups must step back and let the process work itself out a representative can amend it at several points in the congressional staffers must do homework and report to the floor on what they 've learned

answer; /// i do believe that its napolean's conquest of spain;