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 argument described in Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review our notes for each passage to see what methods of reasoning each uses

Answer Anticipation

A quick scan through our notes should help us find overlapping methods of reasoningThe first we can see is that each passage makes a distinction. Passage A distinguishes between facts and interpretations in Paragraph 2, while Passage B distinguishes between objectivity and neutrality, also in Paragraph 2.Also, both use a comparison to other professions. Passage A compares historians to judges (Line 17; Line 20), while Passage B contrasts historians with newscasters (Lines 60-61).While there may be other methods used in both passages, they’re not readily apparent. Let’s head to the answers and look for one of these two anticipated methods of reasoning while staying open to other potential answers that we didn’t specifically tag.

Answer choices

  1. A
    citing historical scholarship that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) We didn’t note any specific examples of historical scholarship, let alone ones that fail to achieve objectivity. The closest either passage gets is when Passage A talks about the relativist historians (Lines 11-15), but even if that counts, Passage B is devoid of this feature.

  2. B
    showing how certain recent Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Neither passage discusses an undermining of the profession, nor do they discuss recent developments.

  3. C
    summarizing opposing arguments in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 11-15; Lines 49-50) This answer is tempting! Arguably, Passage A does this when it highlights the argument of relativist historians that the Author thinks is wrong (“does not mean, as relativist historians claim”). However, even then, the Author just states that their argument is wrong, she doesn’t point out specific flaws in it. Passage B does talk about inhabiting the other side of a debate to point out the flaws, but that’s a recommendation for how historians can make a “powerful argument” - it’s not something that the Author of Passage B does! For this answer to correctly apply to that passage, the Author would have to highlight an argument, summarize it, and then point out the flaws in it, and that doesn’t happen in Passage B. If Passage B had argued for neutrality in historical scholarship before showing what’s wrong with it, then this answer might apply to that passage.

  4. D
    suggesting that historians should Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Line 20; Lines 60-61) While the Author of Passage A says that objective historians adopt the approach of neutral judges, that’s not the same as suggesting they should adopt those standards. And, in any case, the Author of Passage B wants historians to avoid the mechanical gesture of neutrality that newscasters make.

  5. E
    identifying what are seen Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) (Lines 1-6; Lines 21-26; Lines 27-32; LInes 57-60) This answer is interesting in that it encapsulates a lot of both passages. Throughout Passage A, the Author notes all the ways that historical scholarship might end up unobjective - by failing to meet the assumptions of Paragraph 1, or by failing to account for contradictory facts, or by giving in to partisanship, bias, and external loyalties. Passage B notes requirements for objectivity in Paragraph 1, so obstacles to achieving objectivity are implied as failing to meet those requirements. And, on the other end, buying into the view that objectivity requires neutrality would prevent objectivity, as “neutrality” plays no part in the Author of Passage B’s conception of objectivity. Since both passages discuss obstacles to objectivity, this is the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion