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.
What else can I help you with?
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?
I have marked this as a major edit and added the word fallacy to the end of the first contributors answer.Historians Know how to approach history in an unbiased way and look at all the facts instead of leaning one way or another is a fallacy.Historians themselves will admit to being biased. This bias comes out when they "analyze" events they write about. If they had no analysis or a bias to communicate then, as example, the character of say Augustus Caesar, would not be different in the hundreds and hundreds of history books on the first principate of Augustus. The motives of Julius Caesar and the motives of the senators that killed Caesar are subject to debate by historians.Examples of this are monumental. During the Enlightenment in Europe historians who did not give enough credit to Divine Providence were derided.There is a question among historians regarding the US Civil War. Some will put forth a case that based on their research, the War never would have been fought if both sides knew that the cost of lives was over 600,000 soldiers. Some will argue that a compromise would have been worked out.Staying with the Civil War, some will say that General Grant pushed for Sherman's march to the sea in order to end the war as soon as possible. Other historians will say it was pure terror with no other motive.Lincoln's first choice as the commander of the Army of the Potomac was fired because of his inaction, others will say the fact that General McClellan was against the war and therefore wanted to be replaced. McClellan later ran against Lincoln in the election of 1864 as the "peace" candidate.There is a debate among historians as to why Jefferson Davis was not prosecuted for treason at the end of the Civil War. Their opinions are based on their own set of beliefs. The bottomline here is that historians as expected will explain historical events differently. Last example is my favorite. Karl Marx was biased against capitalism and wrote that all of history is based on economics. His explanations are critiqued in different ways based on the bias of another historian.
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?
Historians should be capitalized when it is used as part of a proper noun, such as when referring to a specific group or organization like the American Historical Association. However, when used generically to refer to individuals who study or write about history, it is not capitalized. For example, "Many historians attended the conference" would not capitalize historians, but "The Historians' Society hosted a symposium" would capitalize it.
What should be included in a thesis?
A thesis should include a clear argument or main idea, evidence to support that argument, analysis of the evidence, and a conclusion that summarizes the findings.
