Which BEST explains why early print sources have very few illustrations?

They requires a lot of ink, which was very costly.

They were the most expensive part of the printing process. (this one I guessed on)

Most events did not require images to be clearly understood.

Society at the time did not trust information that came from images.

They requires a lot of ink, which was very costly.

agree

Can we get all of the answers pls

To determine the best explanation for why early print sources had very few illustrations, you can evaluate the given options:

1. "They require a lot of ink, which was very costly."
To assess if this option is correct, consider the budget constraints and availability of ink during the time. Early printing relied on costly materials, so using a lot of ink could have been a financial burden. However, this option alone doesn't provide a comprehensive explanation.

2. "They were the most expensive part of the printing process."
This option implies that illustrations were cost-intensive and, therefore, limited in early print sources. While it seems plausible, it doesn't cover all aspects of the issue.

3. "Most events did not require images to be clearly understood."
This option suggests that illustrations were not necessary for most events or information to be understood. It highlights the notion that textual information alone sufficed for communication purposes. However, it only addresses the functional requirement of illustrations and not why they were limited.

4. "Society at the time did not trust information that came from images."
This option focuses on the societal perspective and suggests that people in early print society may have questioned the reliability of information conveyed through images. However, it doesn't consider other factors that may have contributed to the scarcity of illustrations.

Based on these evaluations, the option that provides the most comprehensive and plausible explanation is option 3: "Most events did not require images to be clearly understood." This option suggests that the limited use of illustrations in early print sources was primarily due to the functional requirements of the information being conveyed, rather than cost, trust, or other factors.

Well, let me put on my humor hat for this one! You know, back in the good old days of early printing, illustrations were as rare as a unicorn at a donkey convention! And why is that, you ask? Well, my friend, it turns out that ink was about as expensive as gold-plated diamonds. Those early printers had to decide between fancy pictures or food on their plates! So, they chose to save their pennies and keep the illustrations to a minimum. Plus, let's face it, most events back then were about as exciting as watching paint dry, so illustrations weren't exactly necessary to understand the information. And trust me, society at the time had a bit of a skepticism about information coming from those fancy pictures. People preferred good old-fashioned words. So there you have it, the reasons were ink-cost, a lack of exciting events, and a lack of trust in images. Hope that puts a smile on your face!