Passage Summary: While history books usually call Caligula a monster, some modern historians think this is just bad press because the only records we have were written by people who hated him.

Conclusion: The traditional depiction of Caligula as a deranged and violent ruler is likely inaccurate or at least unsubstantiated.

Reasoning: There is a lack of contemporary evidence supporting these claims, and the primary historical accounts were written by his political adversaries.

Analysis: To strengthen this challenge, we need to find evidence that further undermines the reliability of those hostile sources or provides a more positive account of Caligula's reign. Look for an answer choice that suggests the 'enemies' had a specific reason to fabricate stories or one that shows Caligula was actually a functional administrator in areas not covered by those biased histories. Since the argument hinges on the bias of the sources, confirming that these historians systematically lied about their rivals would be a powerful boost.