Q21 - Catmull: Although historians consider themselves

[Shiggins]

Having trouble seeing B as right answer. I have trouble with how "None of these conclusions are true" is stated in answer choice B. It states that historians do not arrive at same conclusion therefore historians never arrive at what actually happened. My issue is "historians never arriving at what actually happened synonymous with the conclusions not being true. If someone could explain. thank you

[chike_eze]

Having trouble seeing B as right answer. I have trouble with how "None of these conclusions are true" is stated in answer choice B. It states that historians do not arrive at same conclusion therefore historians never arrive at what actually happened. My issue is "historians never arriving at what actually happened synonymous with the conclusions not being true. If someone could explain. thank you

High level understanding of the prompt is required here.

Conclusion: Historians never determine what happened
Why? Different historians never come to same conclusions about specific things

Just because historians have different interpretations of the same facts does not necessarily mean that they are all wrong. One historian could have the right interpretation of what happened even if others do not agree with him.

Correct = (B) because different conclusions, then "none of these conclusions is true". This captures the flaw pointed out above.

(A) "Restating claim" -- author doesn't do this.
(C) "objectivity... no value whatsover" -- not at issue
(D) "contradiction" -- historians' conclusions contradicted each other, but premise(s) supporting the conclusion did not
(E) "necessary for sufficient" -- wrong flaw

[maryadkins]

Good explanation, Chike.

Because the historians in the stimulus are trying to figure out what actually happened in the past, their being able to determine what actually happened is another way of saying that the conclusions they draw are true.

Suppose I am a historian, and I say, "I determine that on Winston's birthday in 1855, he celebrated by eating cake!" If that's what actually happened, my conclusion is true. If it's not, then my conclusion is not.

Hopefully that answers your question. Please let me know if not.

[alandman]

Having trouble seeing B as right answer. I have trouble with how "None of these conclusions are true" is stated in answer choice B. It states that historians do not arrive at same conclusion therefore historians never arrive at what actually happened. My issue is "historians never arriving at what actually happened synonymous with the conclusions not being true. If someone could explain. thank you

Had the same issue as Shiggins, I think the reason why A is wrong is because it says that the conclusion restates a claim presented in support of the conclusion. That is not the case. The premise that is presented in support of the conclusion start with the sentence `like novelists`.

Thoughts?

[timmydoeslsat]

Answer choice A is describing circular reasoning. This is not occurring in the argument.

Think of this argument like this:

Everybody in this room has a different opinion of which man was President of the United States in 1940. Therefore, nobody in this room actually knows who the President was in 1940.

Could it not be true that one of the many different opinions had it correct?

Just like in this argument, although all of the accounts are different, does it follow that none are correct? Perhaps one of the accounts actually got it right.