How would a secondary source be beneficial to a historian studying a particular event?

One of the most important reasons why a historian might benefit from a secondary source when studying a particular event is because the use of a secondary source allows the historian to avoid the need to look back at the primary source. This is because an expert has already studied it, and published it, so that other historians can rely on it. In this way, a lot of money and effort can be saved.

answer: 1

explanation:

im pretty sure

disease was the number one killer of native peoples. they had had little exposure to the diseases of europe. this led to some villages being almost completely wiped out and some tribes destroyed.