A historian claims massive drought and famine in China caused the boxer rebellion. Which of the following historians is making a counterclaim?

The best answer is A historian who claims the Boxer Rebellion followed directly from the actions of external colonial powers.

In order to understand this question, let us investigate what counterclaim means. It means a claim made to invalidate a previous claim. In this context, our answer needs to have, in its context a structure that goes against what the first historian said.

A historian who claims the Boxer Rebellion followed directly from the actions of external colonial powers - True - By giving a total antagonist cause for the rebellion, a cause that sustains itself with no connection to the previous argument, this case qualifies as a counterclaim for the first historian.

B. A historian who shares a diary entry from a Chinese woman who lost her crops to drought - False - This argument contributes to the original argument, showing a case that supports the historian.

C. A historian who offers evidence that Christians were targeted during the Boxer Rebellion - False - This claim only indicates the possible targets of the Boxer Rebellion, knowing the first claim is about the reason for the rebellion, it does not qualify as a counterclaim.

D. A historian who shows that harvest yields declined in the years before the Boxer Rebellion - False - This argument reinforces the first historian argument, showing one possible cause for the massive drought and famine in China.

Boxer Rebellion wasn't caused by the massive drought and famine in China.