Why should historians avoid oversimplifications when analyzing sources?

a. oversimplifications are usually too similar to existing historical
arguments

b. oversimplifications often ignore complex or contradictory
evidence

c. oversimplifications rely on claims of value rather than claims of
fact.
d. oversimplifications do not make any kind of historical argument

The correct answer is B) Oversimplifications often ignore complex or contradictory  evidence

Explanation:

History is not always easy to study and the further we go back, the further we have to rely on second hand or third hand sources.

For example, in order to study something that happened 20 years ago is fairly easy since it would be recorded either in newspapers, books, or even video.

However, it is not always easy to draw conclusions when we are studying an event that took place 2,000 years ago.

Most of them times we rely on information passed on from generations before until finally someone wrote it down.

While many historians get tempted to Over-simply an event to draw certain conclusions, this should not be practiced as it creates a bias and forces us to study or even research for contradictory evidence. Sometimes, this contradictory evidence can completely change our understanding of the event.

awww

so much for the shoutout

that means so much to

~courtney

try this

explanation: