PrepTest 133

[lcid:3631] Prep Test 133 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 22-27 Passage A  .        Central to the historian's profession and  . scholarship has been the ideal of objectivity. Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Passage A

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Description of historical objectivity
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Central to historians - Objectivity
    • Assumptions - Reality of past; separation between fact and value; separations between history and fiction

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • A distinction (facts vs. interpretation), and a wrong viewpoint
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Value of interpretation = how well accounts for facts
    • Relativists (wrong) - Events lack fixed meanings since meanings change over generations

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Description of how objective historians see selves
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Objective historians - neutral, not advocates or propagandists
    • Analogy - Judges (balance, evenhandedness)
    • Purge of loyalties - allegiance to truth

Passage B

Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Requirements for historians to avoid propaganda
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • For historians to avoid propaganda, must give up wishful thinking, take in bad news, and get rid of bad interpretations

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • A distinction is made, and a potentially counterintuitive implication is explored
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Distinction - Objectivity vs. Neutrality
    • Objectivity - “Powerful argument” - Advocate for one side only after fully understanding arguments for opposing sides/against side being advocated for

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • The distinction is continued
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
    • Objective interpretations more powerful and real than neutral ones
    • Author (first-person) - Neutrality plays no part in objectivity
    • Analogy/Comparison - Newscaster

Main Points:

Passage A - Unlike relativist historians, objective historians view their role as that of a neutral judge, presenting historical facts and interpretations only that accounts for these facts, without reflecting any bias or partisanship.

Passage B - Neutrality, which doesn’t consider the merits of different sides, is different from objectivity, which requires a complete understanding of all sides as exemplified by the “powerful argument,” and objectivity is what historians should strive for.

Key Lines?

Passage A:

  • Lines 1-2 - A central concern/view is noted
  • Lines 2-6 - Assumptions of this view are listed
  • Lines 8-10 - A tenet of the view
  • Lines 11-15 - A debate between that view and another
  • Lines 16-19 - More from the viewpoint on their role
  • Lines 18-20 - A comparison

Passage B:

  • Lines 27-32 - Requirements for historical scholarship
  • Lines 33-34 - A key distinction/paradox is established
  • Lines 34-35 - A clear statement of the paradox
  • LInes 38-42 - The Author’s resolution of the paradox
  • Lines 57-60 - The Author’s first-person statement of opinion
  • Lines 60-64 - A comparison

Meta-Structure? Relationship Between Passages?

Both passages deal with the same topic - historical scholarship. And they both deal with objectivity as a key element of historical scholarship. However, they disagree on what that objectivity looks like! Passage A puts forward the view of objective historians that they “must never become an advocate” for a position (Lines 17-18) and that they should be “neutral judge[s]” (Line 17), purging themselves of biases and partisanship (Lines 22-23). The Author of Passage B, on the other hand, believes that “objectivity...should not be confused with neutrality” (Lines 33-34), and that historians should be able to strongly advocate for both sides of a debate (Lines 49-50, among others), and then they can take a side (Line 42).

Comparison - Both passages, to make their points, rely on comparisons or analogies between historians and other professions. In Passage A, the role of historian is compared to that of a judge (Line 20), where neutrality and evenhandedness are important. In Passage B, the role of an objective historian is contrasted with that of a newscaster, where the historian needs to take a side based on the merits of the case, where a newscaster “mechanical[ly]” allocates equivalent time to both sides of a debate.

Paradox (Passage B) - Passage B brings up a paradox (“Yet…”), or a counterintuitive distinction. He argues that historians should be objective, but that doesn’t mean they should be neutral and they can take a strong political stance (Lines 33-35). He then spends the passage explaining this distinction or non-standard definition of objective.

Last Thoughts?

The key to this set of passages appears to be noting that the two passages both set up objectivity as a key element of being a historian, but they have wildly different definitions of what this means. It overlaps in the idea of neutrality, with Passage A setting it out as being a key to the profession and Passage B distinguishing it from objectivity and claiming it’s not key to the profession - and may even be damaging to it (Line 64).

Question prompt

Both passages are concerned Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point of both passages, then see where they overlap, and find an answer reflecting that point

Answer Anticipation

While this question type occasionally deals with a secondary or minor point in the passage, they more frequently deal with the, or at least a, central concern, so they tend to have answers that reflect the main points.When we reflected on the relationship between the passages after reading them, we said that they deal with the same topic - objectivity in historical analysis (Lines 16-17; Lines 33-35). However, the two passages have very different ideas of what objectivity is. In Passage A, objectivity is said to require neutrality (Line 17), and a shedding of all partisanship and bias (Line 22). In Passage B, however, the Author argues that objectivity doesn’t require neutrality (Line 34), and it can involve analyzing the perceived merits of both sides (Line 64), resulting in a conclusion that one should be accepted and another rejected (Line 42).So while both are concerned with objectivity, neutrality, and bias, they reach different conclusions about how those concepts overlap. Since we’re looking for an answer that reflects a question that both passages are concerned with answering, we should focus on ones that bring up these concepts, but not in a way that suggests a certain viewpoint or definition with which only one agrees.

Answer choices

  1. A
    What are the most Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Both passages speak abstractly about historical scholarship and what makes for good analysis, but neither speaks about specific historical scholarship or the general category of “recent” scholarship. They also don’t rank the flaws, instead at most implying certain flaws by highlighting what should be done. A good sign that an answer in this question type is wrong is if the answer to the question is at most implied.

  2. B
    What must historians do Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) (Line 22-26; Lines Lines 42-49; Lines 57-59) This answer addresses the topics that we identified as being central to both passages, with bias being inherently related to objectivity and neutrality. And it also doesn’t imply a specific definition/viewpoint, rather leaving it open to different interpretations. Passage A answers this question in Paragraph 3, noting that to avoid partisanship and bias, historians must “purge themselves of external loyalties” and focus on objective truth. Passage B, on the other hand, argues that to avoid bias, historians must understand both sides of a debate and be able to argue eloquently for each, but then they can reject one and advocate for another. While these conceptions of bias are different, both passages put forward a clear opinion on how to avoid it, and so this is the correct answer.

  3. C
    How did the ideal Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Neither passage discusses the history of historical scholarship or the concept of objectivity, so this answer is out of scope.

  4. D
    Is the scholarship produced Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 13-15) Passage A says that one claim by relativist historians is wrong, but that doesn’t mean their scholarship is unsound. And even if we mistakenly conclude that those do mean the same thing, Passage B doesn’t talk about relativist historians - they’re contrasted with the objective historians, and Passage B argues that historians should be objective - just in a different sense than Passage A argues for.

  5. E
    Why do the prevailing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 11-15) The Author of Passage A notes that relativist historians use these changing interpretations to make a wrong point, but she doesn’t say why this happens. The Author of Passage B doesn’t mention this. Therefore, this answer is wholly out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion