Question

A historian finds a copy of a document in the ruins of an ancient Indian city. When he translates it, he discovers that it is a code of laws used to govern the city. He publishes his translation and is happy to discover that other historians around the world have started analyzing it in their own work. Which of the following, if true, would suggest that the historian's document is a strong source of evidence for historical interpretation?

Answer 1

Answer: C. It was found in the ruins of an actual ancient Indian city.

Explanation: It cannot be “A” because the fact that the historian has never found any other documents before has no effect on the veracity of the actual document if we are assuming, as stated on the question, that all of this is true.

It cannot be “B” either because the claims on the importance of the document made by the historian are subjective. They are of no value to the truth, even if they are true, they are not the reason why the document is important because it is important by itself.

Finally, the correct answer cannot be “D” because the fact that the document is ancient makes it important by its own (as stated on the previous paragraph). It would not matter if the document described a code of laws, which is characteristic of civilization or it was a childish drawing. If it was found in the ruins of an actual ancient Indian city and it is real, it is a strong evidence for historical interpretation, which leave us with option “C”.

Answer 2

The answer for me was "C. It was found in the ruins of an actual ancient Indian city." --- Apex for me