Which of the following would probably be the most reliable source of information about an event that happened 60 years ago? a. an article written by a granddaughter of someone who participated in the event b. an interview today with someone who saw the event take place c. a letter published in the editorial section of a newspaper one month after the event occurred d. an account from two eyewitnesses recorded on the day the event happened

d.

an account from two eyewitnesses recorded on the day the event happened

An account from two eyewitnesses recorded on the day of the event would be the most reliable source of information.

Explanation:

An account from two eyewitnesses recorded on the day of the event would be the most reliable source of information about it. That’s because it was recorded shortly after it happened so the two people have fresh information. Moreover, they were witnesses so they saw everything that happened. Apart from that, the fact that they are two (and not only one person) gives more veracity to the statement. The other options may lack reliability. An article written by a granddaughter of someone who participated in the event is bound to have missing information as she wasn’t there and is only telling what her grandpa told her. It also may be biased; information may be missing or changed. An interview today with someone who saw the event take place is also bound to lack information as the event was 60 years ago and it’s almost impossible for a human mind to remember everything that happen so long ago without missing details. A letter published in the editorial section of a newspaper one month later of the event is not thorough or totally reliable information as editorials tend to be a person’s point of view of an event.

i think it is the third one.