Option A - CORRECT.
Option A is well refined and can be inferred from the argument in this passage. The interpretation of historical events is affected by Natural science because, Natural science collectively is a study of the physical world and its phenomena. However, historical events are occurrence that took place among the physical world and this events are not constant to change, therefore a routine or decade check and review needs to be done regularly to check and balance changes revolved on nature and also to reinterpret changes in a manner that is new and more illuminating.

Option B - INCORRECT.
This option is one of the reasons why historical events should be reviewed. The past is an historical event that took place on nature, meanwhile it changes naturally from the phase it use to be to another, this changes needs to be reviewed, renewed into an enlightening glimpse of nature by interpreting it in a more refined manner to suit the present state of nature.

Option C - INCORRECT.
History book may not be outdated as soon as they are written if there is not new information about the historical event that was been written about. It remains the same except if there is more information on it or a contrary information has been gathered on.

Option D - INCORRECT.
It has been a controversial statement relating the functions of Natural Scientist with Historian. However, they both try to define nature and interpret the occurrence that evolve on cold hard evidence of nature.

Option E - INCORRECT.
The statement in this option is true, since historical facts are generally qualitative in nature. Most of all historical events happen for a certain period of time and may never occur again.