Historical Mystery: The Power of Corroboration

If you find two historical diaries that say different things about a battle, what should you do first to find the truth?

• Pick the diary that is easier to read.

• Look for a third source to see if it corroborates either diary.

• Assume both writers are lying and give up.

• Throw away the diary that you don't like.

If you were writing a report about your school's first day, why would it be better to interview three students and two teachers instead of just one student?

• To make the report longer and harder to read.

• Because teachers are always more accurate than students.

• To find a consensus and verify if a story is a rumor or a real event.

• Because it is easier to write a report when everyone says the same thing.

What does a historian mean by the term "corroboration"?

• Finding sources that agree to prove a point.

• Finding sources that are written in different languages.

• Ignoring any source that disagrees with your opinion.

• The process of writing a diary about a famous event.

In historical research, what is a "contradiction"?

• When multiple sources agree on every detail.

• When a source is verified to be 100% accurate.

• When two sources give completely different or opposite accounts of the same event.

• The process of checking a source for spelling errors.

What is the term for a general agreement among multiple sources or people?

• Bias

• Consensus

• Perspective

• Contradiction

Which term describes the process of checking a source to make sure it is accurate and true?

• Verification

• Corroboration

• Perspective

• Bias

Why might two witnesses of the same event have different versions of what happened?

• They have different perspectives based on where they were standing.

• One of them is always lying on purpose.

• Historical events can only have one correct memory.

• Sources are not allowed to disagree in history.

How does having multiple independent sources affect a historian's argument?

• It makes the argument weaker because there is too much information.

• It makes the argument stronger and more reliable.

• It makes the argument impossible to prove.

• It means the historian does not need to verify the facts.