PrepTest 156, Section 2, Question 8
Historian: A democracy's citizens must know some history(42 more words not shown)
The historian's argument depends on(6 more words not shown)
- AHistorical awareness is(16 more words not shown)
- BHistory cast in(7 more words not shown)
- CMost historical narratives(17 more words not shown)
- DOnly narratives written(15 more words not shown)
- EThe implication that(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How much history do citizens need to know? That's my first reaction. The opening says that some historical knowledge is required for a democracy to meet its challenges. It doesn't say everyone needs perfect knowledge, or that knowing history guarantees success.
A simplified story about George Washington and King George might leave plenty out. But would knowing that simplified story still count as knowing some history? Perhaps. I initially want to argue about whether citizens know enough.
Before following that objection, though, check what the historian is actually trying to prove.
The conclusion is that popular historical awareness is distorted. The reason is that most people learn through stories suggesting a few heroes and villains shaped all of history. The historian doesn't go on to conclude that democracy must fail. My concern about how much history citizens need isn't the gap this argument asks us to fill.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, connect the reason to the actual conclusion: why is that heroes-and-villains account a distortion? We need the claim that crediting all of history to those few figures misrepresents history. Without that connection, the historian has described how people learn without establishing that what they learn is distorted.
Working the answers
- A
This initially looks very close to our prediction. It mentions a few heroes and villains and calls a view distorted. But look carefully at what the view says: only a few famous heroes or notorious villains existed. It doesn't say those figures shaped all of history.
The number of famous figures and their responsibility for every historical event are different claims. We could accept that only a few were famous while still recognizing countless other people and forces that shaped history. A criticizes the wrong claim.
- B
This condemns history in narrative form generally. The historian needs a narrower connection: the particular suggestion that a few people shaped everything must be distorting. Other narratives could tell accurate, complicated stories without making that suggestion.
- C
'Most people' isn't 'most historical narratives.' A small number of very popular books could reach most readers while most other books tell history differently. The argument describes what most people read, not what most historical narratives say.
- D
Wanting to keep readers interested doesn't require an inaccurate account. A writer could aim to be both engaging and accurate. The argument's problem concerns how these narratives sustain interest, not a claim that sustaining interest must be abandoned to tell history accurately.
- ECorrect
This identifies the missing connection precisely: the implication that those few figures shaped all of history distorts history. If that implication were accurate, the fact that popular narratives convey it wouldn't establish the historian's conclusion.
Compare E with A one more time. E addresses who shaped all of history; A merely addresses how many famous heroes and villains existed. When two answers seem right, comparing their actual claims gives us a chance to catch a detail we missed on the first read.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.