Why is it important to consider historical evidence when making a historical
interpretation?
a. a conclusion made without evidence is a generalization rather
than an interpretation.
o
b. historical interpretations are only considered valid if backed up by
secondary sources.
c. there is no reason to believe an interpretation is true without
evidence to support it.
o
d. interpretations about the past cannot be published unless they
contain many citations.
it's c

answer:

won re-nomination with no opposition he also had the support of his party

explanation:

it saw incumbent president andrew jackson, candidate of the democratic party, defeat henry clay, candidate of the national republican party. jackson won re-nomination with no opposition, and the 1832 democratic national convention replaced vice president john c. calhoun with martin van buren.

i dont have that book

your answer to this question is true hope this