Answer:
I think no 3 is the answer
<span>The United States of America in the 1800’s was a rapidly growing country. Many people moved west for religious freedom while others were strong believers in Manifest Destiny. In order to occupy land, settlers had to find land that wasn’t already occupied. Since most of the west was a part of Mexico, this was not easy to do. Luckily, Mexicans also wanted settlers in their western lands because that area was not developed. Mexico invited Americans to settle in their land. However, both countries had many differences. It did not take long before the United States and Mexico went to war. The United States was justified in going to war because Mexico had shed American blood on American soil, Texas (a land that many Mexicans still considered theirs) was an independent republic and had the right to govern itself, and Texas was trying to become part of the United States, which means that the United States had a right to be involved, too.</span><span>The Mexicans were telling the Texans what they could or could not do. There was a language difference which would make it harder to communicate.
</span>
When historians say they try to be objective this means all of the following EXCEPT:
A. They use their own personal opinions to better explain the evidence.
(They do not use their own personal opinions as that wouldn't make it objective)
B. They do not go beyond what the evidence indicates.
(This stating they do not guess and/or fill in what they believe)
C. They present facts rather than falsehoods.
(Facts do make it objective)
D. They use reliable evidence. (They have to use reliable evidence to make it factual)
The only reasonable answer is A.
