Yes it reflected the idea of limited government in the article.
The correct answer is C) Rome, because Roman law forces the accuser to have a burden of proof.
Based on what happens to Citizen X, he lives under the government of Rome.
When we are talking about the term Burden of Proof it means the accuser has to prove his claims. So, in simpler terms, it’s the obligation of the accuser to present the elements that support his claim. In the case of the example, Citizen X lives in Rome because he has to present the proofs that his co-worker stole the watch. There were no proofs, then, the co-worker was found not-guilty in the absence of proofs.
Robust knowledge is knowledge that has stood the test of time and survived constant criticism. When a piece of knowledge is examined for its truthfulness, critics make a consensus over whether it's correct or not. The knowledge becomes robust if a consensus is reached on its truthfulness and if it survives criticism from different sides and angles. This is difficult to apply to history because those who make history usually have a different perception of what happened. What was an assassination in the mind of one country, is a move of fighting for freedom in another country. That's why a consensus needs to be made on a global scale regarding historical developments and it is done through the academia where people write papers and critics from all over the world critique them to eventually reach an idea of truthful global history.
The economy became more stable because of tax and legal reforms that favored the poor
