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
Brrunno [24]
3 years ago
12

Which text is valuable for gaining context about a historical event but is unreliable as evidence

History
1 answer:
suter [353]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

C). Historical Novel.

Explanation:

A Historical Novel is defined as the literary genre belonging to fiction that is set in a historical period and narrates the events or social conditions of the era with a realistic touch that allows the readers to connect with it. As per the question, '<u>historical novel</u><u>' is esteemed for knowing the context of a particular historical event(background or the circumstances in which the story is set in</u>) but it is mutable as the evidence to substantiate a claim. Thus, <u>option C</u> is the correct answer.

You might be interested in
Why was Theodosius important for Christianity?
mixas84 [53]
He created the first christian church,it became the state church of the Roman Empire.
4 0
3 years ago
What do architectural achievements in early civilizations indicate?
Aliun [14]

Answer:

It indicates the ability to evolve and improve.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why would peisistratus have been popular with poor people?
kherson [118]

Answer:

I don't know and I am ten years old

3 0
2 years ago
What is one reason a bill of rights was added to the constitution
Paha777 [63]

Answer:

The first admendments were just there protected basically all freedom ; especially for the minority groups. So in a short sentence it was added to the constitution to protect the PEOPLE from the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT from having to much power in any case.  

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Compare and contrast Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of human nature and the role government should play
svet-max [94.6K]

Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another.  This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.

John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience.  Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.

Further explanation:

Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people.  But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.

Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em>  in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War.  He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result.  Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.

John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England.  Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings.  Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.

In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way.  If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way.   Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved.    Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith.  But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke.   :-)

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which factor catalyzed the growth of Persian and Greek art and architecture in Delhi?
    15·1 answer
  • What branch of government make sure the laws are carried out and enforced?
    14·1 answer
  • Identify the beliefs of Protestants and the beliefs of Catholics. (Categorize)
    9·2 answers
  • Discuss how you think life in the South was different after the war.
    13·1 answer
  • What was one reason for the interstate highway system begun in the 1950s
    14·2 answers
  • Public Domain
    13·2 answers
  • Huge amounts of land in the Brazilian rainforest available for settlement.
    9·1 answer
  • What is the best book to read on the civil war?.
    14·1 answer
  • Explain 3 aspects of Scandinavian culture that led to Viking exploration and how these led to
    10·1 answer
  • Whats an example in the constitution of republicanism?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!