Step 1: Understanding the passage.
The author critiques conventional historical sources like census reports and church records for their inability to capture the full human experience. These sources are useful for documenting factual events but fail to convey the personal, emotional, and narrative aspects of people's lives, which are crucial to understanding history from the people's perspective.
Step 2: Analyzing the options.
- (A) "They place too great a reliance on political factors" is not mentioned as a specific critique in the passage.
- (B) "They blur the distinction between the political and the religious realm" is not the author's main concern, as she critiques the general incompleteness of these sources.
- (C) "They are not of sufficient accuracy to be of use to historians" is not the primary critique; rather, it's the lack of human context that is problematic.
- (D) "They do not tell the human side of the story" directly addresses the author's critique of these conventional sources. She emphasizes that these sources miss the personal and emotional narratives that oral histories provide.
- (E) "They are often too difficult to obtain" is not the author's main critique; the focus is more on the limitations of the sources once they are obtained.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (D) is the correct choice as it directly reflects the author's point about the inability of conventional sources to capture the full human experience.