Final answer:
The argument is best understood as an objection to the claim that historical biases do not influence historical records. It suggests that historians must recognize various biases to accurately reconstruct and interpret history.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument presented emphasizes the role of interpretation in history and indicates that historical events are subject to multiple perspectives and analyses, which allows for a more nuanced understanding of the past. Historians are tasked with presenting historical facts and narratives without judgment, taking into account various biases that exist due to personal and societal influences. Thus, the argument can most reasonably be interpreted as an objection to the claim that historical biases do not influence historical records (option d). The given text clearly shows an understanding that biases are an inherent part of human nature and historiography, and they influence the way historical records are interpreted and presented. Therefore, historians should acknowledge these biases and strive for a more accurate reconstruction of the past by examining history from multiple lenses and perspectives.