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

The author of passage 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

Define both viewpoints, then identify what they disagree on

Answer Anticipation

We need to define the viewpoint of the Author of Passage B, as well as the viewpoint of the Objective Historians. Let’s start with the Author of Passage B since we should have already defined his viewpoint after reading that passage.Passage B argued for a specific view of historical objectivity. It didn’t require neutrality (Lines 33-34), but rather it required fully understanding both sides of a debate (Lines 42-49) before taking a side. We summed up his main point as: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.Passage A talks about objectivity throughout, but it’s Paragraph 3 where the Objective Historians are specifically mentioned, so we should focus there. In that paragraph, these historians argue that their role is that of a “neutral judge” (Line 17), focusing on “balance and evenhandedness” (Lines 19-20), and that objective historians must avoid partisanship or bias (Line 22).So Passage A’s Objective Historians believe that historians shouldn’t take sides, rather presenting the facts and interpretations that account for them without bias or partisanship. Passage B’s Author, on the other hand, believes that an objective historian can take sides in a debate after fully considering the merits of each side. Let’s find an answer reflecting this difference in opinion.

Answer choices

  1. A
    detachment aids the historian Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) (Line 23; Line 44) This is a tempting answer! It seems to line up with our anticipation. However, this is actually a point that the two viewpoints agree on. Passage A argues that historians should “purge themselves of external loyalties,” so the Author agrees with this answer. Passage B argues that historians should “suspend...his or her own perceptions” and thus take on a detached view to understand both sides of an argument. While this is only temporary, the Author of Passage B is committed to agreeing with this statement because of it - such detachment aids in achieving an objective view by allowing the historian to understand both sides.

  2. B
    an objective historical account Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) (Lines 21-22; Lines 34-35) The Objective Historians of Passage A argue that a historian must avoid partisanship and purge themselves of external loyalties, so there’s no room for a strong political commitment in their view of their profession. Passage B, on the other hand, says that objectivity is perfectly compatible with strong political commitment. This answer is therefore a point at issue between the relevant viewpoints, making it correct.

  3. C
    historians today are less Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (LInes 11-15) Neither passage compares modern historians to ones in the past as far as level of objectivity is concerned - the closest is Passage A’s discussion of shifting interpretations of historical events over time.

  4. D
    propaganda is an essential Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Line 18; Line 28) Both passages establish propagandist as a separate endeavor from historian, and one that should be avoided. Outside of these passages, it would be weird if either passage on the LSAT advocated for propaganda as an essential aspect of historical scholarship, and something that we definitely would have noted while reading.

  5. E
    historians of different eras Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 10-12) This fact is established in Passage A, but Passage B doesn’t talk about differing interpretations over different generations of historical analysis.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion