Q25

[kcozen]

Can someone please explain why the answer is B, not C?

I chose C because this is directly stated in line 21 of passage A. I also thought that "suspend momentarily his or her perceptions" in line 44 of passage B who require setting aside political allegiances momentarily.

I did not choose B because of the word "essential." Although both passages support objectivity as central and ideal, I thought "essential" was unsupported.

[Ndfan2373]

Answer C contradicts what passage B says. Line 34-35: "Objectivity is perfectly compatible with strong political commitment" Answer C falls apart.

A,D, and E do not have any support in the passage.

We're left with B, which makes sense. Each passage mentions its necessity to some degree.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, kcozen!

This is a typical overlap question - common on comparative passages in Reading Comp. You've got the right initial approach in looking for textual support in each passage for the correct answer.

While you are completely correct that line 21 ("insulation from political considerations") gives us solid texual support from Passage A, it's not supported by Passage B. Let's take a more careful look at the line reference you cite: line 44 suggests that the objective thinker must "suspend momentarily his or her own perceptions." But that word "momentarily" is critical! The author is not suggesting that objectivity requires the continued setting aside of perceptions - far from it.

To understand why the author is calling for the momentary suspension of one's perceptions, we really have to read the rest of the sentence. The purpose is so that one can "anticipate...objections". In other words, you temporarily suspend your own point-of-view so that you can see what the other guy's objections would be - and then can more effectively argue against them. The whole point of the temporary suspension is so that you can "mount a telling attack"!

This is not the same thing as "set[ting] aside political allegiances."

Furthermore, Ndfan2373 has noted an absolutely devastating quote for (C). "Objectivity is perfectly compatible with strong political commitment." That's a clear cut contradiction to (C)!

Now, I hear you that "essential" in (B) is a strong word. However, I would caution you not to treat an RC question asking for the best description of an author's attitude as if it were demanding formal logic. Saying that objectivity is "essential" is really no more strong in this context than saying that it's fundamental, central, or pretty dang important.

And the authors agree that objectivity is pretty dang important to historical scholarship -- they just disagree on whether that means neutrality is also therefore required.

Let's take a brief look at the remaining incorrect answers:

(A) Neither author makes any reference to how many historians are actually achieving objectivity.
(D) Neither author discusses whether anyone is a good judge of their own objectivity.
(E) Neither author discusses the number of historians who value objectivity (much less whether it is decreasing).

Does that help clear things up a bit?