How would an historian best respond to the comment, "history is simply a series of events in chronological order." true, with fascinating information of who, what, where, why, and how to explain it well. true, with fascinating information of who, whay, where, why, and possibly some bias and perspective of the writer that we can explore. true, but you are leaving out the best part: "why? true, and we are so lucky to have this many events to learn about and not make their same mistakes.

The correct answer is B) True, with fascinating information of who, what, where, why, and possibly some bias and perspective of the writer that we can explore.

A historian would best respond to the comment, "History is simply a series of events in chronological order" in this way: "True, with fascinating information of who, what, where, why, and possibly some bias and perspective of the writer that we can explore."

The job of a professional historian is to research all the different versions of the participants in a historical event. If the historian just takes the winner version, it could be biased. The Historian takes into consideration all sides of the story, do research, compare versions and historical moments in order to understand what really happened and transmit it to the public.

donald carl johanson (born june 28, 1943) is an american paleoanthropologist. he is known for discovering – with yves coppens and maurice taieb – the fossil of a female hominin australopithecine known as "lucy" in the afar triangle region of hadar, ethiopia.

hope this !

i googled "who was kolson johanson" and this is the answer i found.

sorry if this is incorrect.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is