subgeeth wrote:2. One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when
the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians
should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by
eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources
are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion
unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date
is more likely to be right. Which one of the following inferences is most
strongly supported by the information above?

A. We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts
have been made by historians to determine the right date.
B. Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which
attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot
be dated reliably by historians.
C. Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several
conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.
D. Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting
chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.
E. The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give
conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these
sources as possible.

Iam struck up between B and C

adi_800 wrote:I think its C..

subgeeth wrote:
2. One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when
the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies of the event. Historians
should attempt to minimize the number of competing sources, perhaps by
eliminating the less credible ones. Once this is achieved and several sources
are left, as often happens, historians may try, though on occasion
unsuccessfully, to determine independently of the usual sources which date
is more likely to be right.

Which one of the following inferences is most
strongly supported by the information above?


@prasad bhai....



In simple lanuage:

Whenever there are many number of sources offering "conflicting/different" chronolgy(dates) for a particular event, then that makes the hisoriograp[hers in to trouble.

So to Minimise the error , they eliminate the less credible ones. SO naturally they may have to "leave apart" some sources which may or may not be useful/ reliable.

The passage very clearly tells us that there are "occasions" where historiographers takes a "wrong call".

Now we have been asked Which one of the following inferences is most
strongly supported by the information above?




A. We have no plausible chronology of most of the events for which attempts
have been made by historians to determine the right date.

No where it is mentioned about "book keeping/logging of dates". The stem speaks about the problem faced by histirographers and how they resolve them...SO Eliminated.


B. Some of the events for which there are conflicting chronologies and for which
attempts have been made by historians to determine the right date cannot
be dated reliably by historians.

Hmm sounds very attractive..I think i can hold it for some time...(let me come back to u)


C. Attaching a reliable date to any event requires determining which of several
conflicting chronologies is most likely to be true.

Not really.There can be events where there is NO conflicting chronology. SO that negates the data stated in stem.!!

D. Determining independently of the usual sources which of several conflicting
chronologies is more likely to be right is an ineffective way of dating events.


Stem doesnot hint us about any "ineffective way of dating events.".


E. The soundest approach to dating an event for which the usual sources give
conflicting chronologies is to undermine the credibility of as many of these
sources as possible.

Out of scope/ not mentioned .