I85PREP
⌘ K
HSC History Extension study materials
HSC History Extension study resources

HSC History Extension practice questions

One question at a time. Build your HSC History Extension understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Constructing History (case study)

A historian argues that a source's reliability depends primarily on who created it and for what purpose. This approach is best described as analysing the source's:

  1. historiography
  2. palaeography
  3. provenance Correct answer.
  4. chronology

Explanation

Provenance refers to the origin of a source: its author, date, place of creation and intended audience. Judging reliability by asking who made a source and why is the core of provenance analysis. The other terms name different historical skills, such as reading old handwriting or studying how history has been written.

Question 2Constructing History (case study)

Which term describes the practice of interpreting past events through the values and assumptions of the present day?

  1. Anachronism
  2. Presentism Correct answer.
  3. Relativism
  4. Empiricism

Explanation

Presentism is the tendency to judge or explain the past using contemporary ideas, values and categories. Historians warn that this distorts understanding because people in the past operated within different assumptions. Anachronism is a related error of placing ideas or objects in the wrong period.

Question 3Constructing History (case study)

A historian studying a medieval monastery has only a chronicle written by a monk of that monastery. The most appropriate first step is to:

  1. identify the author's purpose and intended audience before using it Correct answer.
  2. compare it only with modern textbooks on the same period
  3. accept the chronicle because written records are objective
  4. reject the chronicle because its author was biased

Explanation

Every source is shaped by its author's situation and purpose, so the historian first establishes context before weighing its claims. A monastic chronicle may serve the community's interests, but that does not make it worthless. Identifying purpose and audience allows the historian to use it critically rather than simply accepting or rejecting it.

Question 4Constructing History (case study)

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is best understood as:

  1. absolute, since a source is either original or not
  2. dependent on the question the historian is asking Correct answer.
  3. fixed by how long ago the source was produced
  4. determined by whether a source is written or oral

Explanation

Whether a source counts as primary depends on its relationship to the specific inquiry, not on an inherent property. A later history can be a primary source for studying the historian who wrote it. The categories are therefore functional and question-dependent rather than absolute.

Question 5Constructing History (case study)

Which statement best captures the idea that history is a construct rather than a simple record of the past?

  1. Objectivity requires historians to avoid making any judgments
  2. Historical accounts become accurate once enough facts are collected
  3. The past and history are identical because evidence preserves everything
  4. Historians select, order and interpret evidence to produce accounts Correct answer.

Explanation

The past is everything that happened, while history is an account constructed from selected evidence. Historians choose which evidence to use, arrange it into narrative and interpret its meaning. Recognising this construction does not make history arbitrary, because evidence still constrains interpretation.

Question 6Constructing History (case study)

A historian uses a diary written by a soldier during a war. Which question is most useful for assessing the diary's value as evidence?

  1. Whether the diary is longer than other soldiers' diaries
  2. Whether the diary was published by a commercial press
  3. Whether the soldier wrote it close to the events described Correct answer.
  4. Whether the diary has been quoted in later histories

Explanation

Proximity in time between the writer and the events affects the reliability of testimony. A diary written during or immediately after events is generally less vulnerable to memory decay than one composed decades later. Length, publication and later citation do not directly establish the diary's evidentiary value.

Question 7Constructing History (case study)

The phrase 'the historian's craft' most commonly refers to:

  1. the political beliefs held by professional historians
  2. the technical skills of locating, evaluating and interpreting evidence Correct answer.
  3. the collection of artefacts held in museums
  4. the literary style used in historical writing

Explanation

The historian's craft describes the disciplined practices of research: finding sources, testing their reliability and building interpretations from evidence. It emphasises method rather than literary flair or personal politics. These skills are what distinguish historical inquiry from mere opinion.

Question 8Constructing History (case study)

A historian claims that because two eyewitnesses describe an event differently, neither account can be trusted. This reasoning is flawed because it:

  1. ignores the possibility that both accounts contain partial truths
  2. assumes disagreement automatically means both accounts are false Correct answer.
  3. confuses primary sources with secondary sources
  4. overvalues the role of eyewitness testimony in general

Explanation

Disagreement between witnesses may reflect different vantage points, memories or interests rather than total falsity. The historian should investigate the reasons for divergence instead of dismissing both accounts. Treating disagreement as proof of falsehood oversimplifies how evidence works.

Question 9Constructing History (case study)

Which of the following best describes 'historiography'?

  1. The study of how historians have interpreted the past over time Correct answer.
  2. The reconstruction of exact dates for past events
  3. The collection of oral traditions from living communities
  4. The study of physical remains such as buildings and tools

Explanation

Historiography examines the history of historical writing, including changing interpretations, methods and debates among historians. It asks how and why accounts of the past have shifted. Archaeology, chronology and oral history are related fields but not the definition of historiography.

Question 10Constructing History (case study)

A government commission produces an official report on a controversial event. A historian treating this report as evidence should first consider:

  1. whether the report is available online
  2. the commission's membership, terms of reference and political context Correct answer.
  3. the number of pages in the report
  4. the readability of the report's prose

Explanation

An official report is shaped by who commissioned it, who sat on the commission and what questions it was authorised to answer. These factors influence which evidence was gathered and how conclusions were framed. Physical features such as length or availability do not address the report's reliability.

Question 11Constructing History (case study)

The claim that historians can never be objective because they always select evidence is best answered by arguing that:

  1. selection is unavoidable but can be made transparent and evidence-based Correct answer.
  2. historians should only study topics without political controversy
  3. objectivity is impossible so historians should abandon the attempt
  4. selection is unnecessary if historians use complete archives

Explanation

All historians select evidence because the past is too vast to record entirely. Objectivity lies in making selection transparent, testing claims against evidence and being open to revision. Abandoning objectivity or avoiding controversy would not solve the problem of selection.

Question 12Constructing History (case study)

Which practice most clearly demonstrates 'revisionism' in history?

  1. Translating a primary source into another language
  2. Reinterpreting established evidence in light of new questions or sources Correct answer.
  3. Republishing an older history without changes
  4. Refusing to engage with other historians' interpretations

Explanation

Revisionism occurs when historians challenge or modify established interpretations using new evidence, new questions or fresh perspectives. It is a normal part of historiographical debate rather than a form of dishonesty. Republishing, refusing debate or translating sources do not by themselves revise interpretations.

Question 13Constructing History (case study)

A historian finds that two independent sources from different regions report the same unusual event. This is most useful for:

  1. demonstrating that the sources are secondary
  2. proving the event happened exactly as described
  3. showing that both sources copied a common original
  4. corroborating the event's occurrence while still testing details Correct answer.

Explanation

Independent agreement strengthens confidence that an event occurred, because separate witnesses are less likely to share the same error. It does not guarantee that every detail is accurate, so the historian still examines the sources' contexts. Corroboration is a step in evaluation, not final proof.

Question 14Constructing History (case study)

Which statement about oral history as a source is most accurate?

  1. It should be treated as identical to written documents
  2. It is valuable only when written records are absent
  3. It offers testimony shaped by memory and later experience Correct answer.
  4. It is unreliable because memory always distorts events

Explanation

Oral history provides testimony that is filtered through memory, hindsight and the interview context. These features are not simply defects; they can reveal how people understand and give meaning to past experience. Historians therefore analyse oral sources critically rather than accepting or dismissing them wholesale.

Question 15Constructing History (case study)

A historian writes that 'the evidence speaks for itself'. This statement is problematic because:

  1. evidence rarely exists in sufficient quantities
  2. evidence is generally too old to be understood
  3. evidence must be interpreted within a framework of questions and assumptions Correct answer.
  4. speaking figuratively is inappropriate in historical writing

Explanation

Evidence does not announce its own meaning; historians interpret it using questions, concepts and assumptions. The same document can support different conclusions depending on the framework applied. Claiming that evidence speaks for itself conceals the interpretive work involved.

Question 16Constructing History (case study)

Which of the following is an example of a secondary source for a study of a nineteenth-century election?

  1. A campaign poster printed in that year
  2. A letter written by a candidate during the campaign
  3. A modern monograph analysing the election result Correct answer.
  4. A diary kept by a voter on polling day

Explanation

A modern monograph is a secondary source because its author interprets and analyses evidence rather than witnessing the event. It is written after the event and draws on primary materials. Posters, letters and diaries created at the time are primary sources for this inquiry.

Question 17Constructing History (case study)

A historian studying a colonial frontier has only written records produced by the colonisers. The most important limitation to acknowledge is that these records:

  1. may systematically omit or distort the perspectives of colonised peoples Correct answer.
  2. were produced too recently to be reliable
  3. are too few to support any historical argument
  4. were written in a language the historian cannot read

Explanation

Records produced by one side of a colonial encounter tend to reflect that side's assumptions, interests and blind spots. The historian must acknowledge this silence and seek other forms of evidence where possible. The problem is structural bias in the archive, not merely quantity or language.

Question 18Constructing History (case study)

The concept of 'historical empathy' in the study of the past refers to:

  1. sympathising with one side in a historical conflict
  2. sharing the emotional reactions of people in the past
  3. feeling pity for victims of past disasters
  4. understanding past beliefs and actions within their own context Correct answer.

Explanation

Historical empathy is the disciplined attempt to understand how people in the past thought and acted within their own circumstances. It involves reconstructing their assumptions rather than judging them by present standards. It is not simply an emotional response or taking sides.

Question 19Constructing History (case study)

A historian argues that a particular interpretation is valid because it fits the evidence better than its rivals. This argument relies on:

  1. the personal authority of the historian
  2. the aesthetic appeal of the interpretation
  3. the popularity of the interpretation among the public
  4. the explanatory power and evidential fit of the account Correct answer.

Explanation

Historical interpretations are judged by how well they account for the available evidence and explain the phenomena in question. Personal authority, style or popularity are not sufficient grounds for accepting an interpretation. Evidential fit and explanatory power are central to scholarly evaluation.

Question 20Constructing History (case study)

Which term describes a source produced by someone who did not witness the events but draws on other sources?

  1. Primary source
  2. Artefact
  3. Secondary source Correct answer.
  4. Testimony

Explanation

A secondary source interprets or synthesises evidence created by others rather than recording direct experience. Its author works at a remove from the events described. Primary sources, artefacts and testimony each refer to different kinds of evidence.

Question 21Constructing History (case study)

A historian notices that a medieval chronicler dates a battle differently from a contemporary letter. The most appropriate response is to:

  1. prefer the chronicle because it is longer
  2. investigate each source's dating conventions and context Correct answer.
  3. prefer the letter because it is shorter
  4. average the two dates to find a compromise

Explanation

Discrepancies in dating often arise from different calendars, conventions or copying errors. The historian should examine how each source reckons time before deciding which is more reliable. Length and averaging are not sound methods for resolving conflicting dates.

Question 22Constructing History (case study)

The idea that historical accounts are 'provisional' means that they are:

  1. based only on the historian's imagination
  2. temporary and therefore worthless
  3. accepted only until a more popular account appears
  4. open to revision in light of new evidence or argument Correct answer.

Explanation

Provisional knowledge is accepted as the best available account while remaining open to challenge and revision. This reflects the self-correcting nature of historical scholarship. It does not mean that accounts are arbitrary or merely temporary.

Question 23Constructing History (case study)

Which question would best help a historian detect bias in a political speech used as a source?

  1. Was the speech delivered indoors or outdoors?
  2. What was the speaker's purpose and who was the audience? Correct answer.
  3. How many people heard the speech?
  4. How long did the speech take to deliver?

Explanation

Bias is assessed by examining the speaker's aims, interests and intended audience, which shape what is emphasised or omitted. These contextual factors reveal the perspective from which the speech was constructed. Details about venue, audience size or duration do not address bias directly.

Question 24Constructing History (case study)

A historian claims that the absence of evidence for an event proves that the event did not happen. This reasoning is best criticised because:

  1. absence of evidence may reflect poor survival or limited searching Correct answer.
  2. evidence is always biased in favour of the powerful
  3. events in the past cannot be known at all
  4. historians should never make claims about the past

Explanation

The absence of evidence can result from records being lost, destroyed or never created, or from the historian not searching effectively. It does not automatically establish that an event did not occur. Historians must consider the conditions under which evidence survives before drawing conclusions from silence.

Question 25Constructing History (case study)

When historians refer to the 'archive', they usually mean:

  1. the body of surviving records available for research Correct answer.
  2. the published works of professional historians
  3. the physical museum where artefacts are displayed
  4. the complete and objective record of the past

Explanation

The archive is the collection of surviving records, documents and materials that historians can consult. It is not complete or neutral, because what survives reflects decisions about what was created and preserved. Recognising the archive's limits is central to critical historical method.

Question 26Constructing History (case study)

Which statement best describes the role of a case study in the History Extension course?

  1. It provides a detailed examination of how a particular historical interpretation was constructed and contested Correct answer.
  2. It demonstrates that historians agree on the meaning of key evidence
  3. It focuses mainly on memorising the chronology of political events in one nation
  4. It replaces the need to study general historiographical theory across different periods

Explanation

A case study is a focused investigation of a specific historical debate, showing how historians have interpreted evidence, argued with each other and revised accounts over time. It is used alongside broader historiographical theory, not as a substitute for it, and it highlights disagreement rather than consensus.

Question 27Constructing History (case study)

In historiography, the term 'construction' of history most nearly refers to:

  1. The process by which historians build interpretations from selected evidence and argument Correct answer.
  2. The reconstruction of ruined buildings from archaeological remains
  3. The fabrication of evidence by dishonest researchers
  4. The physical building of monuments that commemorate past events

Explanation

'Construction' points to the active work historians do: choosing sources, framing questions, applying concepts and arguing for an interpretation. It does not imply dishonesty, since building an account from evidence is the normal method of the discipline.

Question 28Constructing History (case study)

A historian studying a case study finds that later historians repeatedly reinterpret the same set of documents. What does this most strongly suggest?

  1. Interpretation depends partly on the questions and frameworks historians bring Correct answer.
  2. The earliest interpretation must be the most accurate
  3. The evidence has no bearing on the conclusions reached
  4. The documents are unreliable and should be discarded

Explanation

When the same evidence supports different accounts, the variation usually comes from the questions asked, the concepts applied and the assumptions of each historian. This is central to the idea that history is constructed through interpretation rather than simply extracted from documents.

Question 29Constructing History (case study)

Which factor most directly explains why a historical interpretation may change after new evidence is discovered?

  1. The availability of previously unknown sources that alter what can be supported Correct answer.
  2. The personal popularity of the historian who wrote it
  3. The political party in power at the time of publication
  4. The length of the published work

Explanation

New evidence can confirm, undermine or complicate an existing account, forcing historians to revise their conclusions. Interpretations are provisional precisely because the evidential base can expand or be re-read. Personal or political factors may influence framing but do not by themselves alter what the evidence supports.

Question 30Constructing History (case study)

A historian writes a book that openly argues against an accepted interpretation, using the same evidence as earlier scholars. This activity is best described as:

  1. Plagiarism
  2. Anachronism
  3. Presentism
  4. Revisionism Correct answer.

Explanation

Revisionism is the deliberate re-examination and challenging of established interpretations, often by re-reading existing evidence in new ways. It is a normal and necessary feature of the discipline rather than misconduct. The other terms describe different faults or perspectives.

Question 31Constructing History (case study)

Which of the following is the best example of a primary source for a case study of a twentieth-century political controversy?

  1. A diary kept by a minister involved in the events at the time Correct answer.
  2. An encyclopaedia entry written by an anonymous editor
  3. A documentary film made fifty years later
  4. A textbook chapter summarising the controversy for students

Explanation

A primary source is produced by someone with a direct connection to the events, such as a participant's diary. The other items are secondary because they interpret or summarise the events after the fact and draw on other sources.

Question 32Constructing History (case study)

A historian's account of a case study is described as 'provisional'. This means the account is:

  1. Based entirely on guesswork
  2. Open to revision if better evidence or arguments emerge Correct answer.
  3. Accepted only by the historian who wrote it
  4. Deliberately misleading

Explanation

Provisional means the account is the best available given current evidence and argument but remains open to challenge and revision. This is a strength of scholarly method, not an admission of dishonesty or guesswork.

Question 33Constructing History (case study)

When a case study examines how a national story about the past is taught in schools and celebrated in public holidays, the historian is mainly studying:

  1. The economic output of the nation
  2. The geological history of the region
  3. The collection of memory and identity through public history Correct answer.
  4. The chemical dating of artefacts

Explanation

Public commemoration, schooling and national narratives are forms of public history that shape collective memory and identity. Historians study how these stories are made and used, rather than treating them as neutral facts. The other options belong to unrelated fields.

Question 34Constructing History (case study)

A historian argues that a case study interpretation is convincing because it accounts for more of the available evidence than its rivals. Which criterion of good historical argument is being applied?

  1. Emotional appeal
  2. Chronological priority
  3. Explanatory power Correct answer.
  4. Author reputation

Explanation

Explanatory power refers to how well an interpretation accounts for the range of available evidence and explains anomalies that rivals cannot. This is a core test of a historical argument, distinct from rhetorical appeal or the status of its author.

Question 35Constructing History (case study)

Two historians using the same archive reach different conclusions. Which explanation is most consistent with historiographical understanding?

  1. One of them must have falsified the documents
  2. They asked different questions and applied different conceptual frameworks Correct answer.
  3. Only one of them can have visited the archive
  4. The archive must contain contradictory documents

Explanation

Different questions, concepts and assumptions lead historians to notice different things in the same archive and to weigh evidence differently. This is a normal feature of interpretive disagreement and does not require fraud or contradictory records.

Question 36Constructing History (case study)

A historian criticises an earlier account for reading modern nationalist ideas back into an eighteenth-century conflict. This criticism is best described as a charge of:

  1. Presentism Correct answer.
  2. Positivism
  3. Empiricism
  4. Relativism

Explanation

Presentism is the error of interpreting the past through present-day assumptions, values or categories, such as imposing modern nationalism on earlier actors. Empiricism, relativism and positivism are different positions about evidence and knowledge, not the error described.

Question 37Constructing History (case study)

In a case study, a historian deliberately sets aside their own moral judgement to understand why participants acted as they did. This approach is best described as:

  1. Historical empathy Correct answer.
  2. Historical materialism
  3. Whig history
  4. Moral relativism

Explanation

Historical empathy is the disciplined attempt to understand past actors' beliefs and choices within their own context, without necessarily endorsing them. It is a methodological stance rather than a claim that all moral positions are equal.

Question 38Constructing History (case study)

A case study shows a historian relying heavily on government records while ignoring letters and memoirs that contradict them. The most significant problem with this account is that it:

  1. Uses too many different types of source
  2. Follows the accepted method of all historians
  3. Relies on a narrow and potentially biased evidential base Correct answer.
  4. Avoids making any interpretive claims

Explanation

Selecting only one category of source, especially an official one with its own interests, skews the account and leaves contrary evidence unaddressed. Good historical argument engages with the full range of relevant evidence, including sources that complicate the thesis.

Question 39Constructing History (case study)

A historian studying a contested case concludes that because interpretations differ, no account can be better than any other. This conclusion is best criticised on the grounds that it:

  1. Confuses primary with secondary sources
  2. Ignores the role of evidence in discriminating between competing accounts Correct answer.
  3. Correctly applies the principle of provisionality
  4. Overstates the certainty of historical knowledge

Explanation

The existence of disagreement does not entail that all accounts are equally valid, because evidence and argument can make some interpretations better supported than others. This position mistakes fallibility for total relativism. Provisionality means accounts can be revised, not that anything goes.

Question 40Constructing History (case study)

Which question would best help a historian assess the reliability of a memoir used in a case study?

  1. Was the memoir printed on high-quality paper?
  2. Was the author well known in later life?
  3. How long after the events was it written, and for what audience? Correct answer.
  4. Does the memoir contain many pages?

Explanation

The interval between events and writing, together with the intended audience and purpose, strongly affects memory, emphasis and possible self-justification. These factors bear directly on reliability, whereas physical or biographical trivia do not.

Question 41Constructing History (case study)

A case study examines how a defeated group's account of a conflict was largely excluded from official histories. The historian's focus is primarily on:

  1. The relationship between power and the historical record Correct answer.
  2. The accuracy of weather records
  3. The physics of the weapons used
  4. The biography of a single general

Explanation

When some voices are excluded from the record, historians examine how power shapes what is preserved, published and remembered. This connects evidence to the social and political conditions of its production. The other options concern unrelated technical or biographical matters.

Question 42Constructing History (case study)

Which statement best captures the relationship between evidence and interpretation in a case study?

  1. Interpretation is independent of evidence and purely creative
  2. Evidence constrains interpretation, but interpretation also shapes which evidence is sought and used Correct answer.
  3. Evidence and interpretation are unrelated activities
  4. Evidence determines interpretation completely and without ambiguity

Explanation

Evidence limits what can reasonably be claimed, while the historian's questions and framework influence which sources are selected and how they are read. The relationship is therefore reciprocal rather than one-directional. This avoids both crude determinism and pure subjectivism.

Question 43Constructing History (case study)

A historian uses the concept of 'class conflict' to explain events in a case study. A critic argues the concept is imposed rather than derived from the sources. The critic is questioning the historian's:

  1. Chronology
  2. Citation style
  3. Theoretical framework Correct answer.
  4. Geographical knowledge

Explanation

Theoretical frameworks supply concepts such as class conflict that shape how evidence is interpreted. The critic's charge is that the concept is applied from outside rather than emerging from the sources themselves. This is a debate about method, not about dates or formatting.

Question 44Constructing History (case study)

In a case study, a historian notes that a key document was produced by an institution with a strong interest in a particular outcome. The most appropriate response is to:

  1. Accept its claims because it is an official record
  2. Ignore the document's origin and focus only on its content
  3. Reject the document entirely as worthless
  4. Treat it as evidence of the institution's perspective and corroborate its claims Correct answer.

Explanation

A document with an interested origin can still be valuable evidence of that institution's viewpoint, provided its claims are tested against other sources. Dismissing it or accepting it uncritically both abandon historical judgement. Origin informs interpretation rather than deciding it alone.

Question 45Constructing History (case study)

A case study compares an official inquiry report with private correspondence from the same period. The main value of using both is that it:

  1. Proves that official reports are always dishonest
  2. Removes the need for any further sources
  3. Guarantees the discovery of the complete truth
  4. Allows public statements to be tested against private views Correct answer.

Explanation

Comparing a public document with private correspondence lets the historian see where official accounts diverge from what participants said among themselves. This cross-checking strengthens interpretation, though it does not guarantee complete truth or prove systematic dishonesty.

Question 46Constructing History (case study)

A historian's case study is praised for 'historicising' a concept rather than treating it as timeless. This means the historian:

  1. Refuses to define the concept at all
  2. Shows how the concept's meaning changed across time and context Correct answer.
  3. Argues the concept has never changed
  4. Applies the concept identically to every period

Explanation

To historicise a concept is to show that its meaning, use and social role are products of particular times and places. This guards against assuming that present-day categories applied unchanged in the past. It is the opposite of treating the concept as timeless.

Question 47Constructing History (case study)

A case study reveals that an influential interpretation spread widely because it suited the political needs of its time. What is the most careful historiographical conclusion?

  1. The interpretation's appeal must be separated from its evidential merits, which require independent assessment Correct answer.
  2. Popularity and truth are always identical
  3. The interpretation is therefore false in every respect
  4. The interpretation must be true because it was popular

Explanation

Explaining why an interpretation appealed to its audience is not the same as assessing whether its evidence and arguments are sound. A careful historian distinguishes the sociology of an idea's reception from its evidential merits. Popularity alone neither proves nor disproves a claim.

Question 48Constructing History (case study)

A historian argues that the silences in an archive are themselves historically meaningful. This argument is strongest when the historian:

  1. Ignores the surviving documents altogether
  2. Treats silence as proof of deliberate conspiracy
  3. Investigates the institutional practices that determined what was recorded and kept Correct answer.
  4. Assumes that anything unrecorded never happened

Explanation

Silences become meaningful when historians can show how record-keeping practices, access and power determined what was preserved. This requires investigating institutions and practices rather than assuming absence equals non-occurrence. The approach is strongest when tied to evidence about the archive itself.

Question 49Constructing History (case study)

Two rival interpretations of a case study each explain most of the evidence but differ over a small set of anomalies. The most productive historiographical response is to:

  1. Declare the debate permanently unresolvable and abandon it
  2. Average the two interpretations into one
  3. Choose the interpretation supported by the more famous historian
  4. Examine the anomalies closely, since they may discriminate between the rival accounts Correct answer.

Explanation

Anomalies are often where rival interpretations can be tested, because an account that explains them may prove superior. Abandoning the debate or deferring to reputation avoids the evidential work. Averaging positions does not resolve the disagreement about the troublesome evidence.

Question 50Constructing History (case study)

A historian claims that because all accounts are shaped by perspective, the discipline cannot distinguish better from worse explanations. Which response best defends historical method?

  1. Perspective can be eliminated entirely by rigorous historians
  2. All explanations are equally valid because all are shaped by perspective
  3. Historical method depends on the personal authority of individual scholars
  4. Perspective can be acknowledged while evidence and argument still rank explanations by their explanatory power Correct answer.

Explanation

Recognising that historians work from perspectives does not prevent the discipline from comparing explanations against evidence, coherence and explanatory power. Method provides shared standards for ranking accounts even though complete perspective-free knowledge is unattainable. This is the standard defence against total relativism.