What questions should a historian ask to determine whether a source is credible? select three options.
is it relevant to the subject or event?
is the writing style clear and professional?
does it contain information that is outdated?
is the author an expert on the subject or event?
does it explain a version of how the event occurred?

The three options are:

- Is it relevant to the subject or event?

- Is the author an expert on the subject or event?

- Does it explain a version of how the event occurred?

Explanation:

The question fails to specify whether it's referring to primary or secondary sources, but speaking in general terms, a historian will, first of all, look at a source to see if it contains information that is relevant to the topic they are studying.  In the case of a secondary source it is important to know if the author of the book is an expert on the topic.  It is also important to know if the source discusses a particular version of the historical event or period in order to know if there might be a bias.

Outdated information is not an issue for a historian because they work with old documents and texts all the time.  Old sources still contain very valuable information.  The writing style is also not something a historian is too concerned about because most primary sources are not written in a clear or professional writing style.

A: is it relevant to the subject or event?

D: Is the author an expert on the subject or event?

E: does it explain a version of how the event occurred?

Explanation:

a

hey man i never said i was right

but im a great guesser

the answer is d. party organizers, volunteers, voters and elected officials.