As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the details of historical events and motivations has replaced the previous emphasis on overarching historical trends and movements, with the result that the latter are often overlooked. In consequence, the ominous parallels that may exist between historical trends and current trends are also overlooked, which lessens our ability to learn from history. The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following? ['History should be interpreted in a way that gives equal emphasis to overarching historical trends and movements and to the details of historical events and motivations.', 'A change in emphasis in the interpretation of history has lessened our ability to learn from history.', 'Overarching historical trends and movements can be discerned only when details of historical events and motivations are not emphasized.', 'Those who attend to overall trends and movements in history and not to details are the best able to learn from history.']