Answered

A historian argues that the Roman leader Julius Caesar was assassinated because he was secretly plotting to overthrow the Roman republic and declare himself emperor of rome. Which of the followin, if true, would be a strong counterclaim to the historian's claim?

AJulius Caesar has been widely studied by historians, so there are many primary and secondary sources about him.

BPersonal letters written by Julius Caesar indicate that he believed that Rome should always remain a republic.

CFollowing Julius Caesar's assassination, the Rome republic really was replaced by the Roman empire.

Verified Answer :

likableadvisers

The correct option is B

Cayo Julio Cesar was a Roman politician and military man of the 1st century BC. C. member of the patricians Julios Césares who reached the highest magistracies of the Roman State and dominated the politics of the Republic after winning the civil war that confronted the most conservative sector of the Senate. Although under his government the Republic experienced a brief period of great prosperity, some senators saw Caesar as a tyrant who wanted to restore the monarchy. With the aim of eliminating the threat posed by the dictator, a group of senators formed by some of his trusted men as Brutus and Casio and former lieutenants as Trebonius and Tenth Brutus plotted a conspiracy to eliminate him. This plot culminated when, in the Ides of March, the conspirators murdered César in the Senate.

DanielCastro

Answer:

A good counterclaim to the historian's claim would be B. Personal letters written by Julius Caesar indicate that he believed that Rome should always remain a republic.

Explanation:

In the first place let's look at the "historian's claim" Julius Caesar was assassinated because he was secretly plotting to overthrow the roman republic and declare himself emperor. Thus to counterclaim is a statement we have to look for something that shows the opposite.

Then, in second place We have choice A) which uses "historians studies" as an argument to claim that the "historian's claim" is false. But being a studied topic doesn't make it strong enough to counterclaim his perspective.

In third place, We have option B) which in case it existed, knowing that Julius Caesar wrote that, would make us believe he did not wish to become Emperor. So that would be strong enough to counter the historian's claim. Because we would have then a solid proof of Julius Caesar's opinion.

And finally, in fourth place, we have C) Following Julius Caesar's assassination the Rome Republic was replaced by a Roman Empire. Now, this is related to the topic, but it doesn't picture why would Julius Caesar be assassinated, we have nothing related to the origin of assassination.

So the correct answer is b)

Thank you.

Related Questions