Why would a researcher use a secondary source instead of a primary source when analyzing a historian event

The correct answer is alternative D: "To evaluate the perspective of a witness to the event."

A Primary Source of information in this case would be documents, journals, articles, recording, manuscripts or other similar things that were created at the time of the events being analyzed, whereas a Secondary Source is about the same subject, but not from a source of the time of the events.

For this reason, researchers would use a primary source instead of secondary source in order to evaluate the perspective of a witness to the event, or at least of someone who lived at the time the events occurred.

b) the confederacy had to pay all union war expenses.

if you're talking about (ww2) they went bankrupt and their currency was worth nothing

explanation: