analyze vs assess

To assess means to "evaluate or estimate the nature, ability, or quality of [something]" whereas to analyze means to "examine [something] methodically and in detail, typically in order to explain and interpret it." This is what you should be doing with your primary sources.

Ignore the idiot poster above.

But based on those definitions, doesnt a person have to analyze first in order to assess? If assessing is determining value wouldn't I have first needed to interpret/analyze? Even if hadnt done that, determining the value of a primary source is important? It seems to me like analysis goes hand in hand with assessment.

Yes. And Contrex explained that.

Analyze first. Then assess.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I thought that analysis was implicit in assessment meaning there'd be no need to say "analyze and assess primary sources" or "analyze primary sources." Given that contrex didn't respond, and he's good with English language, I'm assuming my line of thinking was wrong. However, I don't see how you figured he said analyze first and assess second. All he said was I should be analyzing primary sources instead of assessing them.

I would say that assessment is made possible by analysis. It is possible that during analysis (as well as following it) an idea of the worth of a source will begin to form, but the analysis is the essential thing.

Thanks for the clarification.