PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 12
No matter how conscientious they are, historians always(30 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(17 more words not shown)
- Ahistorians who have(11 more words not shown)
- Bscholars in disciplines(11 more words not shown)
- Cmany of the(11 more words not shown)
- Dnot all historians(13 more words not shown)
- Ethe proposed shift(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Having biases doesn't automatically make a historian incapable of interpreting events.
Maybe historians can compare perspectives, check one another's work, and reach useful conclusions despite their different outlooks. The argument acknowledges that bias affects their work, but then recommends changing what the work is about. Why should bias make that particular change necessary?
Instead of interpreting historical events, historians would interpret what participants thought about those events. That's a substantial shift. My initial objection is that the author hasn't shown why historians should abandon the original task. For the flaw question, I'd look for a reason the stated problem doesn't justify the proposed remedy.
What we’re looking for
Keep both sides in view as we read the answers: the presence of bias and the recommendation to study participants' thoughts. A fact about bias by itself won't necessarily tell us whether this change solves anything.
Working the answers
- A
Historians with different biases can agree without their shared interpretation being accurate. More importantly, agreement alone doesn't explain why the proposed shift in focus is or isn't an effective response to bias. It doesn't identify the problem with this particular remedy as directly as E does.
- B
The fact that psychologists, biologists, or other scholars also face bias doesn't settle what historians should do. A problem can occur in several fields while still warranting a particular response in one. We need to evaluate the proposed change in historians' work.
- C
Identifying ways bias affects a study doesn't show that the effects have been removed. Historians could understand the problem and still be influenced by it. This fact doesn't establish whether changing the subject of interpretation would help.
- D
Some historians might be unaware of their biases, but that doesn't show why interpreting participants' thoughts would be an improvement. Their lack of awareness could continue under the proposed approach. The answer adds information about the problem without identifying what makes the recommendation fail.
- ECorrect
Here's a problem with the remedy itself: the historian still does the interpreting. Imagine trying to work out what an English peasant thought about a war. A historian's own outlook could shape that interpretation just as it could shape an account of the war's events.
Changing from events to participants' thoughts doesn't automatically remove the original problem. If the same biases continue to affect the work, the author hasn't shown why this change is the answer to those biases. That's a different, more specific route than simply insisting that biased historians can still produce useful work.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.