Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 11

Incorrect. Both speakers want to convey an understanding of past events, they just disagree over the best way to do so.

Incorrect. Neither speaker argues that a participant in a battle has an objective view of that battle. Carla believes that the view is biased and it's a problem for that account of history. Mark believes it's biased but that it doesn't present a problem. But they agree that it's a subjective and biased view!

Incorrect. Mark argues for this approach to history, so he agrees with it. And in stating that this will present a biased view, Carla suggests that she, too, believes it's possible to convey a subjective sense of what someone went through.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
M: Historians need to capture things like what it was like to fight at Waterloo, so they should focus on capturing what it was like to experience past events.

C: That involves picking someone's perspective, which results in bias, so they should stick to objective accounts.

Answer Anticipation:
Mark and Carla discuss the effect of historians focusing their efforts on writing from the perspective of the participants. While both agree that it's one approach, Mark argues in favor of it, while Carla believes it'll present a biased view of history. She, instead, wants historians to write in a general and objective manner. This difference between how they think historians should approach historical events is the point at issue between them.

Note that Mark might also believe that writing from a specific perspective presents a biased view of history—he may just not think this is a problem! That's not a point at issue between them, so we should avoid any answer that says it is.

Answer Explanation:
Mark argues that historical events should be conveyed through the eyes of those who participated in them, agreeing with this answer. Carla believes that they shouldn't as this creates a biased view of history, and general/objective characterizations should be used instead, disagreeing with this answer. It is therefore the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
Be careful with key premises raised by speakers in Point at Issue questions. It can feel as if someone disagreeing with an argument must also disagree with the key point raised by the opposing viewpoint. However, this isn't the case—it could instead be that they don't believe the premise being raised for that opposed view is nearly as important as the other side makes it out to be. For instance, here, Carla relied on the bias inherent in writing from a subjective viewpoint. It would be easy to assume that Mark believes that there isn't such bias, but that's not in his argument, and so he may just disagree that such bias is as big a problem as Carla makes it out to be.

Incorrect. Neither speaker argues for using fictional episodes in writing about history, so this answer is out of scope.