Critical Reasoning

Hi All,I had the following question on CR ..please post explaination ..OA will be posted after .

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(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.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-B

(B) The past is constantly renewed because of illuminating reinterpretations.

"...Any of these considerations may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating."

What's the OA?

I think it E since the stem states: the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories...may indicate inadequacies in current history texts.

One more vote for E.

I'm going to go against the common choice and go with A. I do not believe the answer is E. If we break down the main sentence into separate sentences we get this:

1) new discoveries of documents and remains may indicate inadequacies in current history texts
2) the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories may indicate inadequacies in current history texts
3) the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data may indicate inadequacies in current history texts
4) the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science may indicate inadequacies in current history texts.

(E) Historians’ mistaken inferences are caused by unnoticed relationships among data.
--> plays with the long sentence to confuse the reader into mistaking the two premises 2 and 3 are actually a cause-and-effect relationship when they are not. incorrect.

(D) Natural scientists also function as historians.
--> no where in the stimulus is this supported

(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.
--> this one seems like a possibility, but there may be a time period (however brief) where none of the 4 things mentioned above have occurred so the history book will not be out-of-date just yet

(B) The past is constantly renewed because of illuminating reinterpretations.
--> "...may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating."
--> this one also confuses words...the past is reinterpreted and becomes new and illuminating. The past is not renewed because of reinterpretation, but is reinterpreted and as a result is renewed.

(A) The interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science.
--> 4) the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science may indicate inadequacies in current history texts.
--> this statement implies that natural science principles affects historical interpretations because the principles may provide reason to rewrite history books.

I'll go with A.

OA please?

people i have a doubt as to why everyone thinks its E.
the faulty interpretation might have been due to unnoticed relationships between data but it also could have been due to other reasons such as chunks of data missing altogether.
so i also agree with mayonaisse..Ill go with A

I also think that it should be E