Which did apprentices do?

This question doesn’t make sense can you please check your grammar Thanks,!

Explanation:

1. There is small amount of bias in the first passage. The author seems to favor passive resistance over people who use brute force, or extremists. He says the people who use brute force over being a passive resistor “devoid of courage and manhood.” To some, that could be very offensive. In the second passage their doesn’t appear to be any bias, if so, it is virtually undetectable. Nelson seems to know both sides of the story and speaks in a way that all people can get behind. He is obviously knowledgeable about what he’s speaking on.

2.Gandhi talks about the English at one point and that makes me think that they are trying to add their “two cents” to what India already has. In the second source, I think Nelson is speaking on the government and police systems being corrupt and them abusing their power. He said he decided to meet violence with violence, which means something was happening before he decided to get involved. If I was unable to determine the context, I personally might search what article, book, etc. the excerpt comes from to get a better understanding. With the second passage, it doesn’t come from a specific source that is listed so I might search words or phrases that are used to see where they come from.

3.Due to the fact that there is bias present in the first source, I would say that while it is still reliable, it might not be the first source I use to get evidence. The fact that it was written by Ghandi is a small redeeming factor. The second source, I would definitely use. It is a firsthand statement by Nelson Mandela, and he is very honest about the events that unfolded. To determine a sources reliability, I would first check the accuracy of the information with what I already know. I would also check where the source comes from and who wrote it as well as the type of source it is. Lastly, I would check for bias.

4. They both talk and address the government and the powers that are corrupt at different points in the passages. The main difference between the two is that in the 1st passage, the standpoint is more the difference in the people that are fighting back against the oppressors, while in the 2nd passage the standpoint is of a person fighting back that knows they could’ve did it differently and the events that took place didn’t have to happen. They both confirm that repressive governments need to be handled and that it is the publics job to call them out and step in when necessary.  For me personally, to find a source that would corroborate another one, I would search for the overall theme or message of the source I already have. Then based on what comes up find a short passage that I can use.

Ok, that was a lot. Could i maybe get brainliest?

Explanation: