Two arguments about an historical event contradict each other how should historians determine which argument is superior

The correct answer is C) search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.

The other options of the question were A) poll people who live near the location where the historical event happened. B) trust the argument made by the more educated, respected person. D) prefer the simpler argument to the more complex argument.

Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. Historians determine which argument is superior in that they search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.

Historians are professionals that have the huge responsibility of transmitting the most accurate representation of history. So when they encounter a situation where two arguments about a historical event contradict each other, they must "dig" deeper, meaning that they have to do more research, get different sources, change the angle of the study, consider more authors, and get the kind of valid evidence that allow them to get the best answer possible.

hello there!

the graphics that you have attached within the question, indicates that few people in bolivia work in industry according to its labor force.

however, the graphic that is on the right side of the picture shows the gdp sector in bolivia. this gross domestic product is a macroeconomic magnitude   that shows the monetary value of all finished goods and services within a country's borders in a specific time period. in this case, the graphic is showing the monetary value in each sector -agriculture, industry and services- of bolivia in 2012.

so, although the first graphic located at the left side indicates that not so many people work in industry, this is the second most important sector according to the gdp metrics because of the monetary value that impacts on its country. it does not need to be the most valuable one. if it makes an impact on the country's economy, it will be definitely crucial to it.

maybe i can