Assertion: Many historians are sceptical about oral history while documenting information regarding the partition of India.
Reason: They dismiss it because oral data seem to lack concreteness and the chronology they yield may be imprecise.

Both the Assertion and the Reason are correct and the Reason is the correct explanation of the Assertion.

The correct answer is option 1: Both the Assertion and the Reason are correct and the Reason is the correct explanation of the Assertion.

Assertion: Many historians are sceptical about oral history while documenting information regarding the partition of India.
Reason: They dismiss it because oral data seem to lack concreteness and the chronology they yield may be imprecise.

The reason provided directly supports the assertion. The skepticism of historians is attributed to the perceived lack of concreteness and potential imprecision in the chronology of oral data. Therefore, the reason adequately explains why historians might be skeptical of using oral history in documenting the partition of India.

Many historians still remain sceptical of oral history. They dismiss it because oral data seem to lack concreteness and the chronology they yield may be imprecise. Historians argue that the uniqueness of personal experience makes generalisation difficult: a large picture cannot be built from such micro-evidence, and one witness is no witness. They also think oral accounts are concerned with tangential issues, and that the small individual experiences which remain in memory are irrelevant to the unfolding of larger processes of history.