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

Which between
the two is more credible and authentic? defend your answer. 20 pts (Minimum of 300 words and
Maximum of 500 words)
Both Teodoro Agoncillo's "Seed of Discontent" and Santiago Alvarez's "Memoir of a General"
provide perspectives on what transpired on March 25, 1897, during the Tejeros Convention in
Cavite. Because Santiago Alvarez attended the Tejeros Convention and was an eyewitness to it,
his book Katipunan and the Revolution was regarded as a primary source. Agoncillo, who based
his interpretation on the historical incident from other eyewitnesses, was considered a secondary
source because he wasn't present for the historical narrative recounted. The primary distinction
between the two is that Alavarez concentrated on the course of the election. It began with the
Tejeros gathering and concluded with the delegation of the officials. Agoncillo's, in contrast, was
thorough because it considered the convention's pre- and post-event activities. The disparity in
viewpoints is yet another important topic of comparison. Because Alvarez was present when the
historical narrative in question was being produced, Katipunan and the Revolution was written in
a subjective manner. Agoncillo's was objective since it was written from the viewpoint of a
person without a constrained understanding of what had happened. From two different points of
view, the two historical accounts were written. It was written by Santiago Alvarez, who attended
the convention and may have had a more limited perspective than those who supported the
testimonies of several other attendees. As a result, Teodoro Agoncillo's work is the secondary
source and Santiago Alvarez's work is the primary source. According to Santiago Alvarez, who
wrote his narrative in a subjective manner based on what he observed, the Tejeros convention did
not actually go as he had imagined it would. Contrarily, Teodoro Agoncillo's narrative used the
testimonies of various eyewitnesses to clearly depict what transpired at the Tejeros convention.
Even though he wasn't an eyewitness, he had the opportunity to share his unique and in-depth
insight of the conference. Santiago Alvarez's story is the most reliable and authentic of the two
sources because it is a primary historical account written by the named author. One of the
witnesses who was present at the Tejeros conference was Santiago Alvarez. His account was
credible because he expressly said that he was seated with the other leaders of the Magdiwang
faction. Teodoro Agoncillo's testimony, though, indicated a more thorough and unique
comprehension of the incident. He was able to provide vital data and information because of the
statements he obtained from several convention witnesses, but it also diminished his authenticity
and credibility.

2.) How relevant is learning the distinction between primary and secondary sources? 15 pts (100
words only).
An account of an event by a participant or eyewitness at the time is referred to as a primary
source. Primary materials, though frequently text-based, can also take other forms in different
research fields. Primary sources also include artistic creations, statistical information from
science or sociology, archaeological relics, and records of official government actions. The
interpretation, discussion, or analysis of a secondary source. Texts typically comprise secondary
sources. A secondary source's author may have little to do with the primary source under study,
either historically or geographically. Or a secondary source might be built on the foundation of
existing secondary sources. The Library Catalog's keyword or subject search can be used to find
secondary sources, as can a key word search in one of the subject databases like Historical
Abstracts. Since primary sources could be referenced in the article's footnotes or bibliography,
secondary sources might occasionally assist in locating primary sources.
3.) How important is historical criticism (internal and external) in dealing with data and
information? 15 pts (100 words only)
Internal criticism, which is based on the internal evidence of a particular object or event, heavily
evaluates primary sources for their reliability, authenticity, and provenance. Internal and exterior
criticism are both significant in the evaluation of primary sources. Unlike external critique, it is
based solely on the source's outward appearance or what is visible on the source. However,
internal critique aims to assess the source using its contents or inner data. Because they shaped
what and who we are today, history and historical materials are crucial. The authenticity of the
document is the subject of external dispute. Researchers must establish whether a document's
content is true after determining its authenticity (external criticism). Critiquing sources is crucial
since it allows researchers to assess the data and information acquired. Lack of source criticism
increases the likelihood of errors and the dissemination of false information to the audience. A
cycle of incorrect conclusions would result from this kind of misinformation. Historical critique
is practiced to prevent such.