Passage Summary: Historians tend to write about the winners in business history, so their books probably make it look like businesses in the past were more successful than they really were.

Conclusion: It is logical to conclude that historical accounts of business tend to exaggerate how successful past companies actually were.

Reasoning: Historians focus their research and writing on successful firms much more frequently than they focus on unsuccessful ones.

Analysis: To strengthen this argument, we need to ensure that the historians' focus on successful firms actually translates into a skewed perception for the reader. If historians studied successful firms but clearly labeled them as rare exceptions, the conclusion wouldn't follow. Look for an answer that suggests these histories are taken as representative of the era or that the lack of failure stories creates a misleading overall picture. We want to bridge the gap between 'what is studied' and 'what the reader concludes about the whole era.'