Final Answer:
The statements, if true, most seriously undermine the assertion that historical events have only one correct interpretation (option d). The acknowledgment of biases in historical records and the recognition of varying perspectives challenge the idea that historical interpretation is an exact science, highlighting the complexity and subjectivity involved in understanding historical events.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statements above, if true, most seriously undermine the assertion that historical events have only one correct interpretation (option d). The recognition of biases in historical records, as indicated in the statements, challenges the idea that there is a singular and universally accepted interpretation of historical events. Bias, whether intentional or unintentional, can influence the recording and interpretation of historical accounts, making it improbable for events to have only one correct explanation.
Moreover, the acknowledgment of varying historical perspectives and the influence of personal biases on historical interpretation directly contradicts the notion that historical interpretation is an exact science (option b). The subjectivity inherent in historical analysis, highlighted in the statements, emphasizes that historical interpretation involves multiple factors and is not a precise or universally agreed-upon science.
In conclusion, the statements, if true, undermine the assertions that historical events have only one correct interpretation and that historical interpretation is an exact science. They underscore the complexities of historical accounts, emphasizing the impact of bias and the existence of diverse perspectives, thereby challenging the idea of a singular and universally accepted historical truth.
So correct option is d) Historical events have only one correct interpretation.