Suppose you have read two different books on World War 2 and each book has different arguments about how the war started. Which of the following best describes the stronger historical argument?

The stronger historical argument would typically be the one that is supported by a more comprehensive analysis of primary sources, considers a wider range of perspectives, and effectively addresses counterarguments. It should also integrate established historical facts while providing a coherent narrative that explains the complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors leading to the war's outbreak. Ultimately, the strength of the argument hinges on its evidential support and analytical depth rather than simply differing viewpoints.