OpenSAT

Question #N872

The debate over the best way to approach the study of history has been ongoing for centuries. While some scholars believe that the most important aspect of the study of history is the exploration of the past through the examination of primary sources, others argue that a more holistic approach is needed, one that considers the broader historical context and the impact of historical events on the present. The following passage from a scholarly essay discusses this debate.       "Historians have long debated the best way to approach the study of history. Some historians argue that the best way to understand the past is to focus on primary sources. They argue that these sources provide an unfiltered look into the past, allowing historians to see the world through the eyes of those who lived it. However, other historians contend that a more holistic approach is needed, one that considers the broader historical context in which events occurred, as well as the impact of those events on the present. To understand the past, they argue, it is necessary to see the world as a complex web of interconnected events that have shaped the present.  In other words, they suggest, it is important to avoid viewing history as a series of isolated facts.           In this way, the two approaches can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. Historians who focus on primary sources are more likely to produce accounts that are grounded in the evidence. However, their accounts may also be more limited in scope, failing to address the complexities of the historical context.           Historians who take a more holistic approach are more likely to produce accounts that are broader in scope and more nuanced in their understanding of the past.    However, their accounts may also be more prone to bias and interpretation.           Ultimately, the best way to approach the study of history is to find a balance between these two approaches."       What is the most likely reason that the author of this passage refers to the two approaches as “two sides of the same coin”?

The author refers to the two approaches to the study of history as "two sides of the same coin" in order to