Are the punishments under hammurabi's code harsh or lenient? use some examples to support your
answer

It was harsh but sometimes fair. Their system of laws dictated precise retribution, "or "an eye for an eye" for lesser crimes. If you do someone wrong, expect the same to be done to you. If you broke someones bone, you would have YOUR bone broken. However for capital crimes, there were bizarre and gruesome punishments. If 2 people were seen committing incest, they were burned alive. If a boy hit his father, his hands would be chopped off.  So yes they were pretty harsh but sometimes it was okay.

option d is correct. corroborated sources of historical evidence   is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history.

historians tend to use written sources, but audio and visual materials as well as artifacts are important objects that supply information to modern historians.

historical sources are usually divided into two categories: primary and secondary sources. depending on the historian's intent, some sources shift their designation. determining what type of sources toimplement, and the level of credibility and reliability of those sources, is a significant step in critical thinking for the historian.

explanation:

i think that the answer is polishing peanuts