Ahistorian is writing a book about the fall of the soviet union. he claims that the country collapsed because it spent too much of its money on its military rather than providing domestic services to its people. what is the best way to determine whether the historian’s interpretation is valid? a. cite the historian's book in another study of the soviet union. b. corroborate the interpretation with other secondary sources. c. find out whether the historian has written any other books. d. find primary sources related to the collapse of other countries.

The answer is B. I just took the test and got it right :)

The correct answer to this is B. Corroborate the interpretation with other secondary sources

The historian is making a claim, a claim that will prove easy to check by looking at other sources. So, you would want to look at other sources to see if the claim checks out.

the conditions that made the byzantine empire vulnerable to attacks by the muslin turks were the sack of constantinople by western crusaders, the conquests of the sultanate of rum, presence of rival kingdoms and finally the set up of fiefdoms at the empire which were owned by the ghazis (turkish warriors).

what are the choices btw if it was me id say the lack of money to continue with education