Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 21

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular reasoning flaw, but the conclusion doesn't restate a premise. The premise here is about disagreement between historians; the conclusion is about whether any historian is correct.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Historians reach different conclusions about specific events, so historians never determine the truth of these events.

Answer Anticipation:
Simplifying this argument makes it a lot easier to spot the flaw, so let's start there.

First, "Although" generally introduces a concession that the author is making, and it's usually not relevant to the eventual argument or flaw, so we should downplay the importance there. That's reinforced by the conclusion not dealing at all with the concept of social science.

Second, the comparison at the end does hint that there might be a comparison/bad analogy flaw. However, that analogy is an add-on to the conclusion, and so the conclusion itself can't rely on it.

With those two elements stripped out, the argument becomes:
Historians reach different conclusions on specific events, so historians never get at the truth of these events.

But just because historians disagree on what happened in the past doesn't mean that they're all wrong! They can't all be right, but it's possible that one of them is. Let's find an answer stating that when a group disagrees on a conclusion, one of them might be right.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the shift between a premise establishing that there's disagreement between historians over specific events and a conclusion that this disagreement means that all the historians are wrong ("never determine what actually happened"). Since this argument correctly describes the argument and what it describes is flawed reasoning, this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When people disagree, they can't all be right (unless it's a Paradox question!). However, they also don't all have to be wrong. One of the conflicting views could be correct.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the value of what historians do, let alone a judgment that they have "no value," so this answer is incorrect. If anything, Catmull believes that what they do is "interesting," suggesting there's at least some value to it.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to think that the "Although" statement contradicts the follow-up premise. However, being a social scientist doesn't mean that you have to reach the same conclusion as other social scientists. Additionally, that opening statement is about how historians "consider" themselves, so it wouldn't contradict a statement about what is actually true about them.

Incorrect. Catmull arguably treats all historians agreeing as a necessary condition for their statements to get at the truth of the matter, but she doesn't then treat that as a sufficient condition since that condition is never met.