PrepTest 117, Section 1, Question 11
In the field of historiography—the writing of history(454 more words not shown)
The author would most likely(8 more words not shown)
- AExamining the actions(32 more words not shown)
- BThe significance of(18 more words not shown)
- CRecognizing the actions(21 more words not shown)
- DBy recognizing as(14 more words not shown)
- EThe expanded definition(19 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The writer supports broadening the evidence beyond the usual written records. The stated reason is general: a full history of a culture's relationship with its land can't rely on too narrow a record of experience.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a view the writer would resist, not merely a claim the text doesn't explicitly discuss.
Working the answers
- A
Considering other groups' actions is compatible with that broader approach. Nothing says only Asian settlers' actions matter or that other groups can be ignored.
- B
This fits the situation described. Some historians have recently recognized evidence that traditional approaches left out. They needn't all recognize its importance at the same time.
- C
Giving attention to the Asian settlers adds an important part of the history. The writer never says that adding it completes everything there is to know.
- D
The writer agrees: treating actions as evidence expands what counts as a source. That's the proposed improvement.
- ECorrect
This restricts the usefulness of the broader approach to regions with significant non-European immigration. But the reason for broadening sources isn't limited to the ethnicity of the settlers. A narrow written record can miss parts of any culture's interaction with its land. The Pacific Coast example shows the value of actions as evidence; it doesn't make non-European immigration a requirement for that value.
More Author's Opinion questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Author's Opinion questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.