Why would direct contact be such a useful vehicle for gaining information about a society? What ethics might be involved in conducting research with religious groups and/or of religious practices? Could the presence of an observer in the group affect the observations being made?

The direct contact or direct source of information about a population will always be more accurate because the population is analyzed with greater precision and also since it is not a secondary source and if a primary source is less at risk of information error, it presents greater reliability, it is known by which method the population was analyzed, and without verifiable and correct indexes.

the ethics that could be related are socio-cultural, economic, health-related, ethnic races, sociodemographic characteristics and also religion in certain populations can even influence job placement.

Yes, the observer depends on his position in the population analysis. It can be participatory or explanatory. In the case that he is participative, it means that he will be in dynamic contact with the population being analyzed, which is not a simple expectant and can modify analysis, data from population information.

Explanation:

As a final conclusion, and explanation, we take into account that whenever there is a population analysis, it is necessary to see what type of analysis it is, if experimental, community field, cases and control, cohort, etc. There is a wide variety of population analysis, which information from this analysis can be from a primary (more reliable) or a secondary source (increased risk of error or handling false information that is not analyzed by the researcher). On the other hand, religion may be one of the variables to be analyzed in a population, which must be taken into account because today religion conditions, excludes, includes, encompasses many different population groups.

i am pretty sure it is d.

b. the american revolution