1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Aleksandr-060686 [28]
2 years ago
7

Witch statement best describes a simularity between the two historians arguments.

History
1 answer:
makkiz [27]2 years ago
8 0

Option D. The similarity between the two arguments of these persons was that Both try to persuade the reader by only including details that support their arguments.

<h3>What is the argument of Historian A?</h3>

The historian is trying to state the reason that led to the revolution in America. According to him, it was due to the fact that the colonists were greedy.

He attributed it to stubbornness and disobedience to the tax laws of the English people.

<h3>What is the argument of Historian B?</h3>

This historian justified the revolution by blaming the British for the events that led to the revolution.

He put the blame on the British for the heavy tax laws they put on the colonists and for restricting their freedom and their liberty.

Each of these historians added the details that they felt are the best to help sway the opinion of the people reading the excerpts. Hence option D is correct.

<h3>Complete question</h3>

Read the views of two modern-day historians:

Historian A:

The American Revolution was caused by the American colonists' greedy desire for more money. They were simply tired of paying their fair share of taxes to the British government, even though British troops protected the colonies during the French and Indian War! Furthermore, their claims to be fighting for freedom and liberty are totally wrong. Many of the colonists still owned slaves at the time of the Revolution! The traitorous American colonists simply wanted to steal land that was already claimed by Great Britain.

Historian B:The American Revolution was completely justified due to Great Britain's repeated abuse of the colonists. The British passed enormous taxes on goods in the colonies, even though the Americans had no say in the British government. British soldiers were also allowed to live in American houses and eat common people's food without paying. During the Boston Massacre, British soldiers even fired their muskets into a crowd of civilians! Under such oppressive conditions, it's no wonder that the patriotic colonists would want to fight for the freedom and liberty of all people!

Which statement best describes a similarity between the two historians' arguments?

A.Both try to confuse the reader with unrelated details rather than making any strong claims.

B.Neither can be considered a credible source because they did not experience the American Revolution.

C.Neither uses any historical evidence to support his claims about the American Revolution.

D.Both try to persuade the reader by only including details that support their arguments.

Read more on the historian reports on the revolution  here: brainly.com/question/14027420

#SPJ1

You might be interested in
Explain the rational as to why people created government
nata0808 [166]

Answer:

Explanation:

Problem Solving

Identifying Basic Rights

Think of a right you believe all people should have. For example, you probably agree that everyone in the United States has the right to be protected from robbers and burglars. The belief that everyone should have this protection is shared by most people in the United States. We hear about it on television, in the newspaper, and in discussions.

Individually or in small groups, explain how you think rights like the one you have identified can be protected.

Defining "Natural Rights"

Most people in the American colonies believed that everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights were called natural rights. (Sometimes these are now called basic rights or fundamental rights.) The idea of natural rights means that all persons have these rights just because they are human beings. Everyone is born with these rights and they should not be taken away without a person's agreement.

Many of the Founders believed people receive these rights from God. Others believed that people have them just because it is natural for people to have them.

John Locke was a famous English philosopher. He lived from 1632 to 1704. He had written a book called Two Treatises of Civil Government (1690). In that book he wrote about natural rights. He said that the main purpose of government should be to protect the people's natural rights. He also said that kings should not have absolute power, that is, power without limits. They should not be able to deprive people of their natural rights.

Many Americans had read Locke's book, and they agreed with what it said about government. Those who had not actually read Locke's book knew his ideas from newspapers, political pamphlets, church sermons, and discussions.

Protecting Natural Rights

Although people agreed on certain natural rights, they worried about how those rights could be protected. Locke and others thought about what life would be like in a situation where there was no government and no laws. They called this situation a state of nature. They were afraid that in a state of nature their rights would be taken away.

Think what your classroom might be like if there were no rules.

Problem Solving

It's your turn to think like a philosopher

Imagine what life might be like in a state of nature. Think what your classroom might be like if there were no rules. Think what might happen if the teacher didn't have the right to tell anyone what to do.

Work together in groups of about five to answer the following questions about such a situation. Then choose a person to explain your answers to the rest of the class. Then compare your answers with John Locke's which follow.

What might be the advantages and disadvantages of living in a state of nature?

What might happen to people's rights?

What might life be like for everyone?

Compare Your List with John Locke's

You may have seen the same disadvantages in a state of nature that John Locke saw. Locke believed:

The stronger and smarter people might try to take away other people's lives, liberty, or property.

Weaker people might band together and take away the rights of the stronger and smarter people.

People would be unprotected and insecure.

The Social Compact

John Locke and other philosophers developed a solution to the problems that exist in a place without government. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and they would feel insecure.

Locke argued that people should agree with one another to give up some of their freedom in exchange for protection and security. They should consent to follow some laws in exchange for the protection that these laws would give them. This agreement is called a social compact or social contract. A social compact is an agreement people make among themselves to create a government to rule them and protect their natural rights. In this agreement the people consent to obey the laws created by that government.

In a later lesson, you will study the Declaration of Independence. You will see how the Founders included all of the ideas you have studied in this lesson in the Declaration.

4 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which three of the following are characteristics of an economic union?
zaharov [31]

Answer:

common trade regulations

free movement of capital and labor

free movement of goods

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
What does Locke say can happen if a government fails to protect the rights of the people?
nirvana33 [79]

Answer:

If any government abused these rights instead of protecting them then the people had the right to rebel and form a new government.

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
Who played a leading role in spreading Christianity in Europe after the fall of Rome?
nikdorinn [45]
After Jesus, the two most significant figures in Christianity are the apostles Peter and Paul/Saul. Paul, in particular, takes a leading role in spreading the teachings of Jesus to Gentiles (non Jews) in the Roman Empire.
7 0
3 years ago
Which commandment does Voltaire use to justify his belief in religious tolerance?
Basile [38]

Answer: Beliefs and Philosophy

Explanation: Voltaire  in keeping with other Enlightenment thinkers of the era, was a deist — not by faith, according to him, but rather by reason. He looked favorably on religious tolerance, even though he could be severely critical towards Christianity, Judaism and Islam

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of these did not benefit from government support during the Johnson
    13·2 answers
  • I WILL GIVE U BRAINLIST ANSWEr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    13·2 answers
  • Which statement describes a similarity between the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Scopes trial?
    13·1 answer
  • Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    13·2 answers
  • Explain how the use of barbed wire was perceived negative by Texans.<br><br> Negative:
    14·2 answers
  • What search terms might you use to conduct more research to understand some of the topics in this article better? What would you
    6·1 answer
  • What did people rely on rivers for during the 18th century? Select the three correct answers
    7·1 answer
  • Which of these connects the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea? A) Suez Canal Eliminate B) Panama Canal C) Bering Strait D) Bosph
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following is the best definition of a census?
    8·1 answer
  • How did Persia become involved in the Peloponnesian Wars?
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!