Which strategy would a historian most likely use to determine whether a source is valid? a. confirming that it is not an online source b. checking its conclusions against other sources c. determining whether or not it is well-known d. determining whether it is a secondary source

"confirming that it is not an online source" is wrong. The problem is not the fact the source is online, but if it's credible.

"determining whether or not it is well-known" well-known sources might still be wrong. Being known does not make something true.

"d. determining whether it is a secondary source" again, it has nothing at all to do with the validity of the source.

So the answer is:

b. checking its conclusions against other sources

The best way is to check the source and compare to different ones that talk about the same subject. Comparing different conclusions of different authors and seeing different points of view about the same thing is often the best way.

native americans suffered high rates of poverty and unemployment.

during the late 1960s and early 1970sthe need for political militancy grew among the native americans. throughout the 1960s, they had been the nation's poorest minority group, the most deprived group, according to practically every socioeconomic measure. in 1970, the indian unemployment rate was 10 times the national average, and 40 percent of the native american people were below the poverty line.

he risk-return relationship. generally, the higher the potential return of an investment, the higher the risk. there is no guarantee that you will actually get a higher return by accepting more risk. diversification enables you to reduce the risk of your portfolio without sacrificing potential returns.

explanation: