Do I need to refer to a publication which provides a useful summary of primary sources?

Question

If a secondary source provides a great summary of a primary source, do I need to cite that secondary source?

For instance, what if Foo, B. (2009) wrote the following:

World (2003) maps factors which contributes to cat cuteness, such as A, B, and C.

Bibliography:

World, H. (2003) On the cuteness of cats. In International cat journal 1(1)

In this case, World. H, a very reputable author, went on for pages and pages in their article do describe A, B, and C, and Foo's (a junior researcher) summary was actually much more useful to me.

So in my paper, is it fine to write:

According to World (2003), cat cuteness can be described through A, B, and C.

although I initially found this in Foo's account? Or is it preferrable to write

Foo (2009) summarises World (2003) in proposing that cat cuteness can be described through A, B, and C.

to indicate where I first learned about this?

Answer 1

The golden rule is to write in a way that most benefits your reader, so giving both the primary source and the summary sounds like the best thing to do here. Assuming that the initial findings here are the thing at issue, it would make the most sense to give the primary source as the source for that, and then note the usefulness of the summary article --- e.g.:

World (2003) finds that cat cuteness can be described through A, B, and C (see also Foo 2009 for useful discussion).