Why should historians avoid oversimplifications when analyzing sources? a- oversimplifications often ignore complex or condradictory evidence. b- oversimplification rely on claims of value rather than claims of facts. c- oversimplifications do not make any kind of historical argument. d- oversimplifications are usually too similar to exsisting historical argument.

The correct option is "A- Oversimplifications often ignore complex or condradictory evidence."

Historical sources constitute the raw material of History. They include all the documents, testimonies or objects that transmit us significant information regarding the events that have taken place, especially in the past. Within them, and considering the value that others also have, the written sources are the basic support to build history.

The historian works historical sources ("interrogates and contrasts") to obtain as much information from them as possible. It must also attend to its variety, making an adequate selection of them. In a general sense, historical sources are of two types: primary and secondary.

the correct answer is individualism and exchange. at this stage, children begin to question the rules, because they can see that there is more than one side to them. different individuals have different viewpoints. they won't be able to reach this stage because of ignorance, a lack of ethics or personal biases. that is because people with that characteristiscs are not able to distinguish what is good or what is bad and they can't pursue their individual interests.

the first question's answer is a.