Critical Reasoning

History textbooks frequently need to be revised. The reasons for this are clear: new discoveries of documents and remains, the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories, the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data, and the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts. Any of these considerations may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the argument in the passage?

(A) The interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science.
(B) The past is constantly renewed because of illuminating reinterpretations.
(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.
(D) Natural scientists also function as historians.
(E) Historians’ mistaken inferences are caused by unnoticed relationships among data.

IMO C
What's the OA?

Answer should be (A).

In this question the keyword is HITHERTO. It means SO FAR. If replace this word with its meaning then I guess this CR problem would be really simple one and everyone can solve it.

(A) by POE

imo:A

rest all are too strong in language!!

out of A and B it's hard to select but I would have gone for B in the exam.
What's OA

It can't definitely be B because it changes the meaning of the argument you can't renew the past, it can be reinterpreted instead as mentioned in the argument.

I had doubt between A & C, but A makes much more sense.

You are right...... B changes the meaning........

Past is not renewed , but re-interpreted

ab78 wrote:It can't definitely be B because it changes the meaning of the argument you can't renew the past, it can be reinterpreted instead as mentioned in the argument.

I had doubt between A & C, but A makes much more sense.

I will go with "B".
"A" I think infers only part of the passage.
"C" is too broad or extreme.
"D" not relevant

History textbooks frequently need to be revised. The reasons for this are clear: new discoveries of documents and remains, the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories, the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data, and the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts. Any of these considerations may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the argument in the passage?

(A) The interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science.
I chose this AC. For one, the fact pattern states that history is constantly revised due to new information. Then BAM!, they switch to talking about natural science's influence on said history.

(B) The past is constantly renewed because of illuminating reinterpretations.
Eliminate: A prediction. Who knows if it is constantly renewed. This is too strong!

(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.
Eliminate: Too strong. One history text could exist that is entirely accurate.

(D) Natural scientists also function as historians.
Eliminate: Too strong. You can't say ALL natural scientists are historians.

(E) Historians’ mistaken inferences are caused by unnoticed relationships among data.
Eliminate: Too strong. "All are caused by unnoticed.."? What if information or technology wasn't available at the time to allow observation?

I was between A and E and marked E
I thought A is ancorrect because argument gives several reasons why history should be revisited and a speaks only about natural science.
But argument has a key - Any of these considerations may require

IMO A should be the answer...

B,C and D are too strong

E cannot be 100% sure that each mistake is due to misinterpretation of data

Thus A should be the choice

I would go for A as well. It seems the best and safest among the rest.