Tocqueville, a nineteenth-century writer known for his study of democr

Hi ravigupta2912 hello AndrewN sir

Sir has already briefed well the key point.

Just to clarify on 2nd point raised by ravigupta2912 : My point was that what historians now believe and what bio claim doesn't provide us useful information to judge and leaves us with too many open ends.
If you think strengthen side: Oh Bio knows that it is because of poor economic conditions , still they think T blamed N for such a condition, so it means it maybe because of N?
Or weaken side: Ah! so it was not because of N but because of other reasons , hence weaken.
This option adds some unnecessary information that is not of much value . There can be unlimited ambiguous claims but judging them are left to reader as in the example highlighted: (I think you will agree that invoking could-be-true scenarios about the military under Napoleon trampling fields is a much less direct and more challenging approach to justify.)
So a hint: why such an option would be correct answer that is not directly influencing our conclusion.
So after thinking this, I was not convinced with A and moved on to next options.

C also has some open ends. But at least we get a direction that T had reasons to avoid poverty inspite of N do what .
What i mean is: C can be argued, oh! He could hate N because even after his father death N didn't do anything, but on other side, if his father had steady income, then in spite of he hated or liked N, his conditions would have been better. So at least some bridge is covered in C at one side as compared to A in which both ends are open . So I kept hold on C.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks!