The skulls of early human-like creatures were much larger in size than the skulls of modern-day humans. How would a historian most likely describe this statement?

It is truthful because comparisons of the two skull types provide proof.

It shows bias because determining the size of an object is an opinion.

It is a fact because the writer is a modern-day human.

It shows neither fact nor opinion.

Question

Social Studies

Jakobe Copeland

13 September, 01:40

The skulls of early human-like creatures were much larger in size than the skulls of modern-day humans. How would a historian most likely describe this statement?

It is truthful because comparisons of the two skull types provide proof.

It shows bias because determining the size of an object is an opinion.

It is a fact because the writer is a modern-day human.

It shows neither fact nor opinion.

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Malcolm Boyle · Answer 1

The correct answer to this question is " It is truthful because comparisons of the two skull types provide proof."

The skulls of early human-like creatures were much larger in size than the skulls of modern-day humans. A historian most likely describe thisstatement by having it truthful because comparisons of the two skull types provide proof.