Brainliest if you answer this correctly in DETAIL. More than 3 sentences long, please. What could be a problem with using just one or two primary sources to study an event?

Disadvantages: Some primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, may be too close to the subject, lacking a critical distance. Others, such as interviews, surveys, and experiments, are time consuming to prepare, administer, and analyze. Primary sources help students relate in a personal way to events of the past and promote a deeper understanding of history as a series of human events. Because primary sources are incomplete snippets of history, each one represents a mystery that students can only explore further by finding new pieces of evidence.

Explanation:

explanation: we can only guess at how our actions may be perceived in the future. doing something really big like killing lots of people, saving lots of people, affecting the lives of lots of people is a sure fire way of being remembered in historical records. we can also make a difference in the history records by being a small influence on something bigger, whether that is as a civil servant, scientist or artist.

of course you could argue that we all affect history just as tiny cogs in a   bigger machine.

if you mean how do people influence our opinions of things which have already happened, then simply by writing a book which looks at things form a different perspective and trying to convince people that this perspective is more accurate or truthful. people do it all the time i.e. richard the third was a terrible or was he? plenty would disagree, it's just that their views aren't the most widely known.n: