Why does a course in world history not often rely on written sources as evidence? what sources do they use in lieu of written sources?

Based on my experience taking the class, they do use written sources as evidence in which vary in primary and secondary sources. It's possible that they do not rely on written sources because of bias, but the students usually have to take that into account when making connections in essays, depending on whether the source is from a trustworthy person or not, such as a king or a philosopher.

The statement is correct because if there is a bunch of noise around you and you are focusing on the noise you will not comprehend your questions and lessons nor will you be able to get the proportion information you need and you will likely spend many more hours on work than normal than if you could ignore the sound

Ibelieve it is d but i may be wrong