Historian: The only evidence we have for claims about the past exists in the present. How things actually occurred is beyond our knowledge. Historians construct coherent stories that explain the available evidence and why the present is as it is. Such stories about the past, however, do not need to be true to be good history; they need only explain the evidence about the past and what we know about the present better than do rival accounts. Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the historian's position? ['It is not necessary to know what actually occurred during the 1857 War of Independence to write a good history of it.', 'It is not possible to write a good history of the 1857 War of Independence without studying rival accounts.', 'It is likely that the 1857 War of Independence did not actually occur in the way we think it did.', 'An account of the 1857 War of Independence that is true is better as history than one that is not true but better explains the evidence.']