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(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.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

B is wrong as the passage does not mention anywhere about past being renewed constantly.

C & D are not mentioned in the passage..

"E" is wrong as passage does not mention that historians unnoticed relationships among data. It is talking about history text books..


"A" is possible as the passage mentions that the interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science in the 4th line.. Hence "A"

I'd say B.

A. It's not affected by the science, but by the application of newly discovered principles

B. I admit that the past isn't really renewed, it's more our read on it that is, but the other solutions seem "wronger"

C. There is no indication that the evolution is that quick

D. It's not because scientific discoveries cause a change in historical understanding, that it's the same people doing both things.

E. Both items cause mistakes in interpretation, but they are not linked to one another.

I would say - B.

OA please?

I will Go with option B

I am leaning more towards E