The 'great man' theory of history attributes major events to exceptional individuals—Napoleon, Lincoln, Einstein. Social historians counter that these figures emerged from specific conditions that made their achievements possible; without the French Revolution's chaos, Napoleon would have remained an obscure artillery officer. Yet critics note that this view risks reducing individuals to mere products of circumstances, ignoring genuine agency and contingency in historical events.
It can be inferred from the text that
all historians now accept the great man theory
social conditions completely determine individual achievement
historical explanation may require balancing structural factors with individual agency
Napoleon's military success was entirely due to luck
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Both individual agency and social conditions are defended.
- Context clues: Great man theory emphasizes individuals; social history emphasizes conditions; critics of social history defend agency.
- Meaning: Neither extreme fully explains history—both factors matter.
- Verify: The dialectical structure (thesis-antithesis-criticism) suggests synthesis is needed.
💡 Strategy: When criticisms exist for both extreme positions, infer that balance or synthesis is appropriate.
Choice A is incorrect because the passage describes ongoing debate. Choice B is incorrect because critics note this "reduces individuals to mere products." Choice D is incorrect because Napoleon's case illustrates conditions enabling achievement, not luck.