reply2spg wrote: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(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.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.

OA A

neha.patni wrote: IMO A

B - It is a shell game answer...the functions are exchanged...but using similar words as the premise gives the feel of a correct answer
C - Too extreme...the argument never says that
D - Though discoveries by scientists aid in reinterpreting the past, but scientist don't work as historians
E - 1 premise is uncorrectly correlated to another in cause and effect...