Advocates of any particular basic approach to personality historically a. claimed that their approach explains everything worth explaining. b. admitted that other approaches have their good points. c. proudly asserted that they have deliberately limited what they have chosen to look at. d. claimed that approaches cannot be compared with each other.

I believe the answer is: A. claimed that their approach explains everything worth explaining

These advocates tend to made this claim in order to bring fame and wealth for themselves. Since personality is influenced by a lot of factors, it is borderline impossible to actually analyse the things that might contribute to the creation of the personality. In the long run, all theory to analyze personality tend to created on over generalization .

was the answer correct?