1. Compare and contrast the work of Santiago Alvarez and Teodoro Agoncillo.

Which between the two is more credible and authentic? Defend your
answer
 The difference between the work of Santiago Alvarez and Teodoro
Agoncillo are that in Alvarez’s work focused on the election that happened
in Tejeros convention. Santiago Alvarez’s “Memoirs of General” is a primary
sources. Santiago Alvarez was a revolutionary general. The responsibility of
being a revolutionary general was to keep the records of the events or
important activities in a certain place. From the definition itself
“revolutionary”, he was able to write and focus in the events that will be
revolutionary. While, in Teodoro Agoncillo’s work “Revolt of the Mass” is a
secondary sources. Based on his text “Revolt of the Mass”, it was all
mentioned the events happened before the election occurred. He
introduced at the very beginning the two factions until the end of election.
Agoncillo's stated events prior to the assemble. The date of the Tejeros
Assemble. “It was March 22, 1897, Aguinaldo’s birthday, when
simultaneously the battle raged and the assemble convened at Tejero”,
“The assemble at Tejeros was finally convened on 25 of March 1897”. It
was written, reviewed and been studied. But they both covers the story of
what happened in the election occurred in Tejeros Convention. Alvarez
Memoir and Agoncillo’s research finding both important dates in their
work.
For me, Santiago Alvarez’s work is more credible and authentic it was the
primary sources, the original event. He was an eye-witnessed, he personally
experienced the event. He focus and further explain what happened in the
said election by two factions – Magdiwang and Magdalo in Tejeros
convention. It is detailed and mentioned the delegations of the person
involved that only happens the day of election. As for Teodoro Agoncillo, It
was a secondary sources. He only indicates the events before Tejeros
convention. It was mentioned the dates, battle and important events that
was different in Alvarez’s knowledge.
2. How relevant is learning the distinction between primary and secondary
sources
 The distinction between the two are that Primary sources are direct from
an event or original source. Primary sources are usually considered to be
items like personal letters, diaries, records or other documents created
during the period under study and a primary source gives you direct access
to the subject of your research.
While Secondary sources provide second-hand information and
commentary from other researchers, It also provide good overviews of a
subject and secondary sources are anything written about something that
isn't the primary account of whatever the source is referencing, such as
textbooks, journal articles, reviews, academic books, and reports.

3. How important is historical criticism (internal and external) in dealing with

data and information?
 When dealing with data and information, we need it to be clear and
understood by readers. A lack of criticism can leave readers and viewers
misinformed, leading them to draw incorrect conclusions and make faulty
decisions based on flawed data. In evaluating primary source both internal
and external criticisms are important. Internal criticism questions the
credibility of the author and the primary source if it is genuine or fake. It
determines the character of the author and the corroboration. External
criticism deals with the problem of authencity. This process is important
regarding analyzing data, because we have to question whether or not we
can trust the data and use it as a reference point.