When studying history, it is important to understand bias and its possible impact on a historical narrative. Historians are a pr
oduct of their various opinions and backgrounds, and the student of history must keep this in mind when studying a secondary historical source. One historian, for example, might place emphasis on the social causes of a historical event while another historian might argue for economic causes. These two points of view would have the potential to greatly impact the historical narrative told by these historians. Which of the following is the main point of the passage used here?
A.
There can only be a few causes of any particular historical event.
B.
Social causes of events are usually overshadowed by economic causes.
C.
Bias should be excluded from historical analysis as much as possible.
D.
A historian's narrative will reflect his or her own opinions.
By process of elimination, this passage is not arguing about the topics of a specific event, it's broadly warning readers that Historians tend to make bias arguments based on their background or knowledge of an event. The author was only providing an example, but that doesn't mean it's what the whole paragraph is aout. It's also not remotely saying Bias needs to be removed, it's just saying it exists.
No, because essentially we are already paying out of pocket to the government, so really it'd just be us paying more money towards taxes not the government for programmes.
The floods brought rich black soil onto the banks of the Nile River which made it possible for farmers to grow crops. The Nile was the ancient Egyptians made route of transportation from place to place. The dry climate near the Nile made it so the ancient pyramids still stand today.
