Answer: The right answer is the C) Secondary source.
Explanation: Just to elaborate a bit on the answer, it can be added that an article written in 2005 about an event that happened in the 1930s cannot be considered a contemporary source (D), since it was written decades later. In addition, it cannot be considered a historical account, since historical accounts, or chronicles, do not usually offer an interpretation of the events, and the article probably does, since it was written at a much later time. Likewise, the article cannot be considered a primary source, since primary sources are documents that offer a first-hand account of the specific historical event (a letter, a contract, a photograph, an artifact), and, although the author of the article may have used and interpreted primary sources in order to write it, his or her work is not a primary source. The article is, therefore, a secondary source, since it was created by someone who was not alive when the event that he or she is talking about happened, but is (usually) well-informed about it and attempts at describing and clarifying it for a contemporary audience.
