<p>Intro: These passages are adapted from observations made by two 20th century historians on how nations--and people--make use of their sense of their own history.</p>
<p>Modern people, especially when harried and perplexed by the sweep of events, peer earnestly into history for some illumination of their predicament and prospects, even though they may only read magazine articles or listen to the radio or television. And when great events rouse people to their most responsible temper, and fierce national ordeals awaken them to a new sense of their capacities, they turn readily to the writing of history, for they wish to instruct, and to its reading, for they want to learn. It was no accident that the First World War fostered such an interest in history that for a time the number of books in English devoted to history exceeded the titles in fiction. </p>
<p>It used to be said that history should be written without prejudice, that the historian must not step aside to draw a moral. The first cannot be done; the second should not. Historians should always draw morals. If the accurate, judicious and highly trained scholars fail to do so, the unscrupulous and unqualified will do it for them, and the deluded public will listen gaping to false but more emphatic prophets. Historians who neglect the education of the public are responsible for the villainous stuff to which the public will go instead. A nation does not create the historians it deserves; the historians are far more likely to create the nation. </p>
<p>Both these passages are shortened and formatted to answer the following question:
The author of Passage 2 would most likely consider the "number" (line 35, Passage 1) an example of the
A) appetite for history that makes the public vulnerable to irresponsible historians.
C) interest in history that leads readers to overestimate their own expertise.</p>
<p>The answer is A. I see why its A but i don't see why it's not C. Help?</p>