0
I have the feeling that your question may be part of a series of questions that were put to you. So there is a risk in giving an answer out of the context of your homework assignment. But generally speaking, the strongest argument in any historical debate will be the one where facts and assumed motives can be supported by contemporary factual and documentary evidence; the more, the better.
Historians determine the superiority of arguments based on evidence, logical reasoning, and adherence to historical context. Arguments that are supported by primary sources, are coherent and well-reasoned, and accurately reflect the historical context are typically considered superior. It is also important to consider counterarguments and alternative perspectives in evaluating the strength of an argument.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How should historians determine which argument is superior if two arguments about an historical event contradict each other?
Historians should assess the evidence supporting each argument, consider the credibility of the sources, and evaluate the context in which the arguments were made. They may also look for consensus among other historians or seek additional evidence to support one argument over the other. Ultimately, the argument that is best supported by a preponderance of evidence and critical analysis is considered superior.
One should avoid including what in an analytical essay?
One should avoid including personal opinions, unsupported claims, and emotional language in an analytical essay. It should focus on presenting a clear argument supported by evidence and analysis.
What should sources be evaluated for?
Sources should be evaluated for credibility, reliability, accuracy, and relevance to ensure the information is trustworthy and appropriate for the intended purpose. Check the author's credentials, publication date, potential biases, and supporting evidence to determine the credibility of a source.
When building an outline how should a writer categorize each piece of evidenceAsk us anything?
When building an outline, a writer should categorize each piece of evidence based on its relevance to the main points or arguments. Each piece of evidence should support a specific point or idea in the outline, helping to reinforce the writer's thesis or central argument. It's important to organize evidence cohesively within the outline to ensure a logical flow and effective support for the writer's main ideas.
Why should explaining history be left to historians?
Historians are trained to critically analyze historical events, sources, and interpretations. They have the necessary skills to contextualize information, avoid biases, and present a balanced perspective. Leaving the explanation of history to historians helps ensure accuracy and depth in understanding the complexities of the past.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
Search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.
Which term describes a clearly stated argument supporting a particular point of view?
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
How should historians determine which argument is superior if two arguments about an historical event contradict each other?
Historians should assess the evidence supporting each argument, consider the credibility of the sources, and evaluate the context in which the arguments were made. They may also look for consensus among other historians or seek additional evidence to support one argument over the other. Ultimately, the argument that is best supported by a preponderance of evidence and critical analysis is considered superior.
What term describes a clearly stated argument supporting a particular point of view?
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
What should the thread of the argument and the presentation of the argument should be .?
Opposing
What should you say to a friend who you just got into an argument with?
That depends on what the argument was about
In writing What should an argument do?
An argument should present a clear point of view or claim supported by evidence and reasoning. It should anticipate and respond to counterarguments, showing why the claim is valid and persuasive. Ultimately, the goal is to convince the audience of the validity of the argument.
How the thread of the argument and the presentation of the argument should be?
The thread of the argument should be logical and cohesive, with each point building upon the previous one to lead to a clear conclusion. The presentation of the argument should be organized, with a clear introduction, supporting evidence, and a strong conclusion that reinforces the main points. It should also take into consideration the audience's perspective and be delivered in a persuasive manner.
What should beThe thread of the argument and the presentation of the argument?
The thread of the argument refers to the logical progression and coherence of ideas presented within an argument. It should be clear and follow a logical structure, moving from one point to the next in a coherent and understandable manner. The presentation of the argument involves how the argument is communicated, including the use of evidence, examples, and persuasive language to support the main points and convince the audience of the validity of the argument.
In the rebuttal argument you should?
Provide the opponent's arguement.
When should historians be capitalized?
Only when it forms part of the proper noun. Example: Organization of American Historians
Which emperor willed on his life that the Roman empire should be split into two parts?
No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.No emperor declared that the empire should be split into two parts. It was historians that made the distinction in order to avoid confusion.
