PrepTest 133

Topic: Social Science

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

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.

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

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.

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).