Historian Dr. Lisa Wong argues that counterfactual history—analyzing what would have happened differently—is legitimate historical methodology, not mere speculation.
Which methodological defense would best support Wong's counterfactual legitimacy claim?
Historians ask questions
Some events seem pivotal
History is interpretation
All causal claims implicit contain counterfactuals ('X caused Y' means 'without X, not-Y'); historians make such claims constantly; rigorous counterfactuals simply make this reasoning explicit and testable rather than hidden
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Logical necessity of counterfactuals in all causal claims legitimizes explicit method.
💡 Strategy: Defending methodology shows it's implicit in accepted practices being made explicit.