Before answering the question, read the following passage. "After the establishment of one-man rule at the end of the first century BCE, for more than two hundred years there is no significant history of change at Rome. Autocracy represented, in a sense, an end of history. Of course there were all kind of events, battles, assassinations, political stand-offs, new initiatives and inventions; and the participants would have have all kinds of exciting stories to tell and disputes to argue. But unlike the story of the development of the Republic and the growth of imperial power, which revolutionised almost every aspect of the world of Rome, there was no fundamental change in the structure of Roman politics, empire, or society between the end of the first century BCE and the end of the second century CE." From Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2015), 335-336. Which of the following evidence supports this claim? Choose all answers that apply: Choose all answers that apply: (Choice A) A There were many events and conflicts that changed the structures of the Republic in the first century BCE (Choice B) B There continued to be internal events and disputes in Rome (Choice C, Checked) C The political structures Augustus created changed very little over two centuries (Choice D, Checked) D Autocratic government always produces stability