When studying history, it is important to understand bias and its possible impact on a historical narrative. Historians are a product of their various opinions and backgrounds, and the student of history must keep this in mind when studying a secondary historical source. One historian, for example, might place emphasis on the social causes of a historical event while another historian might argue for economic causes. These two points of view would have the potential to greatly impact the historical narrative told by these historians.

Which of the following is the main point of the passage used here?
A.
There can only be a few causes of any particular historical event.
B.
Social causes of events are usually overshadowed by economic causes.
C.
Bias should be excluded from historical analysis as much as possible.
D.
A historian's narrative will reflect his or her own opinions.

D.

Explanation:

By process of elimination, this passage is not arguing about the topics of a specific event, it's broadly warning readers that Historians tend to make bias arguments based on their background or knowledge of an event. The author was only providing an example, but that doesn't mean it's what the whole paragraph is aout. It's also not remotely saying Bias needs to be removed, it's just saying it exists.

Hopefully this helps! :D

richard nixon led the investigation that resulted in alger hiss being convicted of prejury.

well first we can compare on what the slave masters ate and what the slaves ate well the masters ate fancy great food like chicken rice mash potatose and stuff like that and slaves ate well food that your not suppost to eat like the weird parts of turkey and chicken and slaves master chilled beat and eat and slaves work get beat and get little of sleep there you go