Every account of history is from a human perspective. Even history textbooks, which are trying to be objective, show us what the writers value by what they include, what they leave out, and how they frame their historical accounts.
The particular benefit of first-person accounts of history—and the importance of fictional thought experiments like the novel Kindred—is in the subjective human perspective. In primary sources like letters, diaries, and oral histories, there is no pretending that one is capturing the whole story. It is a very specific story. But it is through the combining of many specific stories that we are able to see a clearer whole.
Studying history, and understanding what we are capable of, is an integral part of changing society for the better, now and in the future. ... This is where history can become "tainted" by perspective. Different people will interpret things like historical cause and effect differently.
I would go with B, "populations declined in urban areas"
Explanation:
For all 3, the urban population is much greater in 100 CE than 1000 CE. I find the graphs to be set up in a poor way and you'd expect them to have grown, so forgive me if I'm wrong.
