When studying history, it is important to understand bias and its possible impact on a historical narrative. Historians are a product of their various opinions and backgrounds, and the student of history must keep this in mind when studying a secondary historical source. One historian, for example, might place emphasis on the social causes of a historical event while another historian might argue for economic causes. These two points of view would have the potential to greatly impact the historical narrative told by these historians.

Which of the following is the main point of the passage used here?
A.
There can only be a few causes of any particular historical event.
B.
Social causes of events are usually overshadowed by economic causes.
C.
Bias should be excluded from historical analysis as much as possible.
D.
A historian's narrative will reflect his or her own opinions.

D.

Explanation:

By process of elimination, this passage is not arguing about the topics of a specific event, it's broadly warning readers that Historians tend to make bias arguments based on their background or knowledge of an event. The author was only providing an example, but that doesn't mean it's what the whole paragraph is aout. It's also not remotely saying Bias needs to be removed, it's just saying it exists.

Hopefully this helps! :D

cuban communists pressured the soviet union to place missiles in cuba.

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.