a. non-historians can appreciate well-written historical accounts, but they cannot judge the accuracy of a historian's version of events. NON HISTORIANS ARE OUT OF THE SCOPE AND THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO THE ARGUMENT.
b. history is analogous to architecture in that both disciplines build on foundation laid by other profession.THA ANALOGY IS BETWEEN PROFFESIONALS NOT PROFFESIONS.
c. a good historian must have thorough knowledge of auxiliary science that help establish fact about events. TOO EXTREME-'MUST HAVE"+ KNOWLEDGE IS NOT STATED IN THE ARGUMENT.
d. the credibility of historian's argument depends on the amount of information the historian has available. THER IS NO CONNECTION TO INFORMATION.
e. a historian has an obligation to be factually accurate but accuracy is not the historian's most notable accomplishment. IF UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT :IT'S SAYS THAT PRAISING A PROFFESIONAL FOR USING TRIVIAL TOOLS (FACTS/TIMBER OR MIXTURE) IS SOMEWHAT PRAISING HIM FOR THE WRONG REASON. THE ANSWER E SUPPLIES THE REASON-THEY BOTH HAVE MUCH NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (IT'S OBVIOUS THAT ARCHITECT WILL USE TIMBER/MIXTURE AND HISTORIAN WILL USE FACTS, BUT THEIR GOAL LIES ON THE MACRO-"ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE-POINT OF VIEW USING THE TOOL (MIXTURE)' AND HISTORICAL STRUCTURE-POINT OF VIEW USING THE TOOL (FACTS)"