Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. how should historians determine which argument is superior? a. poll people who live near the location where the historical event happened. b. trust the argument made by the more educated, respected person. c. search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports. d. prefer the simpler argument to the more complex argument.

The answer is C. If two arguments about a historical event contradict each other, historians should search for additional evidence to see wich argument it supports.

Historians' work must be based on evidence; when researching certain historical event, they examine primary sources, such as texts, documents, pictures, diaries, etc., from that time period, these documents are the evidence they interpret in order to formuate an argument about such event.

i do not know if this question has options, but a main impact of the federal reserve act of 1913, which created the federal reserve bank, was the international use of the u.s. dollar, which soon became the world's leading currency - particularly during world war i, since many nations around the world asked the united states for money.

honestly you should get that checked out because it really isn't normal