The primary and secondary sources between the two readings about a Tabon-man.

The first given

reading is a primary source. Then the secondary source one is the second source. I say that the first
author in the reading is the primary source base on my what I read and think about the reading. The
author of the first reading Robert B. Fox is known to be the eyewitness of the Tabon-man in his detailed
observations and analysis. Then the second article written by Henry Scott seemed to be a commentary
of articles about the Tabon-man. Its turned interpretations of different facts added a happening about
Tabon-man pleading in today. His own stated his sources in the written articles of Tabon-man.

Even trying to do thorough analysis and research of his findings

For me, I think Robert B. Fox is more creditable to talk about the topic because he is an eyewitness. He
was the one who discovered the Tabon-man and the date of the written work is closers than William’s
to the year of the event. The fact that he is an anthropologist, which studies of various aspects of
humans within past and present societies, makes his writing more reliable and valid. The format of the
findings seems like a personal journal, therefore is no bias. It is kind of an interpretation and analysis of
every finding he had gathered about the topic

Even trying to make a thorough analysis and research of his findings

For me, I think Robert B. Fox was more convincing to discuss the subject because he was an eyewitness.
He discovered the Cave-man (Tabon- man) and the date of the written work is closer than William until
the year of the event. The fact that he is an anthropologist, studying different aspects of people within
past and present societies, makes his writing more reliable and accurate. The format of the findings
seems to be a personal journal, therefore without bias. It was kind of an interpretation and analysis of
every discovery he had accumulated about the topic