Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. Focusing on details doesn't itself lessen this ability; doing this instead of analyzing overarching trends and movements is the problem.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't state that the two ways to study history are mutually exclusive, and it's certainly not necessary to avoid details in order to see overarching trends.<

Incorrect. This answer is too strong in talking about who is "best" able to learn from history, as there are no statements that allow that extreme comparison to be made.<

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
In history writing:
(1) Old trend - Emphasize overarching trends and movements
(2) New trend - Focus on details and motives of events

Results:
(1) Ominous parallels are overlooked, resulting in. . . .
(2) A lessening of our ability to learn lessons

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus here features a few statements that traditionally lead to correct answers in inference questions.

First, it notes a shift from an old emphasis on trends to a new focus on details and motives. Second, it brings up a consequence—or effect—of that shift.

So we have a change that has had a given effect. That causal relationship and the comparison between the old and new emphases are likely to play a role in the correct answer, so we should be on the lookout for anything dealing with those topics.

Answer Explanation:
This answer limits itself to abstracting from the stimulus. A "new trend" in historical writing has resulted in a focus away from overarching trends, leading to a lessening of the ability to learn from history. Therefore, a change in emphasis (from trends to details) has led to that lessening, as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
In a Must Be True question that features a description of a situation/phenomenon, one common type of correct answer is the abstraction. This type of answer will take the specific situation noted and weakly generalize from it—abstractly describing the situation without making it too strong of a statement to be supported by the single instance discussed.

Incorrect. Two issues here. First, the stimulus doesn't provide information about what "should" be done. Second, even if we accept that we should do things to avoid learning fewer lessons from history, there's no indication that there needs to be an "equal" focus on details and trends.