Primary or secondary source?

Example 1

1. Start with the first question on the card: who made it? Solomon Northup, telling his own story.
2. Then: was he there? Yes. He was held in slavery in Louisiana for twelve years. He is telling what was done to him and what he saw.
3. When did he make it? In 1853, the year he was freed. Even if he had waited forty years, that would not change the pile: later is not secondary. A gap in time is a reason to check details, not a reason to call a witness secondary.
4. One more thing in the description: he told his story with the help of an editor. That is one more pair of hands between. It is a reason to read carefully, but the account is still his, first-hand.
5. So: a primary source. And remember what primary does not mean. It does not mean neutral or complete. Northup saw slavery from inside, in the places he was held. That is what makes him valuable, and also what limits what he could see.

Answer: A

Example 2

1. Ask the card’s questions about the documentary itself, not about the things inside it.
2. Who made it, and when? Filmmakers, in 1990, about 125 years after the war. Were they there? No.
3. What did they do? They gathered primary sources, photographs and letters, chose some, put them in an order, and added actors’ voices. That is what a secondary source is: made later, by people who studied first-hand accounts. So the answer is B.
4. A and C are the tempting ones. The photographs and the letters are primary sources. But the film that shows them is a new thing, made long afterward. Count the hands between: the soldier, then the filmmakers who chose his letter, then the actor who reads it.
5. D is the wrong reason. Being secondary is about when and by whom a source was made, not about whether it can be trusted.

Answer: B