Q27

[kcozen]

Could someone explain why E is correct over D?

Doesn't passage A discuss judiciary standards and B discuss powerful arguments(lawyers) making D, correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

In short, the fact that you had to add a parenthetical to justify (D) is enough of a red flag.

You said
Doesn't passage A discuss judiciary standards and B discuss powerful arguments(lawyers) making D, correct?

Well, we need some more explicit support than "powerful arguments" to say that psg B discussed another field.

Sure, lawyers also try to make powerful arguments. Maybe effective politicians do as well. Maybe grad students writing their dissertations also do.

We can't take a trait that WE might associate with a given field and say that THE AUTHOR told historians that they SHOULD adopt standards used in the legal profession.

I'll admit, though, that as I read that whole part about the "powerful argument", I was definitely thinking to myself, "Wow, so a historian's job sounds a lot like a lawyer's."

But the author didn't say that.

The other big problem with (D) is the word "should". Psg A is really written from a descriptive perspective, not a normative one (what SHOULD be the case).

There is a lot of talk about "ideals" and what "should" be the case in Psg A, but these ideas are assigned to the mouthpiece of objective historians.

That's actually why the question stem differentiates between
"the argument described in passage A"
and
"the argument made by the author of passage B"

== other answers ==

(A) There are no specific examples of historical scholarship cited in either passage.

(B) Passage A is definitely not discussing RECENT developments that UNDERMINE the credibility of historians. Passage A is timeless in nature.

(C) This sounds a LOT like the powerful arguments discussed in psg. B, but there's nothing like this in Psg A.

(E) This is the correct answer. Obstacles to objectivity are discussed in both passages.
Psg A: political considerations, partisanship, external loyalties
Psg B: wishful thinking, love of only good news, reluctance to give us pleasing interpretations

Hope this helps.

[cvoldstad]

I picked C for this am and a little confused by the explanation for why it does not work, you say that "
(C) This sounds a LOT like the powerful arguments discussed in psg. B, but there's nothing like this in Psg A."

But in passage A doesn't the author 'summarize opposing arguments in order to point out their flaws' when he discusses relativist historians (in opposition to objective ones) in lines 11-15??

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, thanks for calling me out on that one. My explanation for (C) is a little dumb (sometimes I don't like to think too hard about an answer that feels intuitively wrong).

We need to first perhaps establish what IS the "argument" A describes and the "argument" B makes.

I would say the argument A describes is this:
- Objective history should try to avoid bias/politics, distinguish between fact/value, and simply report the "facts" as best as they can.

Is there an opposing argument to that?

Yeah, kinda. Your line 11-15 reference is saying "c'mon, really? there's no objective history, no absolute meaning. History is just open to interpretation."

Does the author of psg A therefore "summarize opposing arguments"? Well ... he kinda summarizes one argument. Does the author point out the flaws in this argument? Well ... not directly. The author of psg A isn't even endorsing objective history, just presenting it.

So it's weird to say that the author of psg A summarized opposing arguments in order to point out their flaws. This author had no purpose other than to present the objective historian's credo.

What's the argument in psg B?

I'd say it's this:
- Objective history doesn't mean NEUTRAL, it just means thoughtfully considering but ultimately rejecting alternative arguments.

Does the author of psg B present an opposing argument?

No. No one in psg B is arguing that objective history IS neutral. And this nonexistent opponent certainly isn't being debunked.

So, ironically (based on my earlier explanation), I think there is LESS support for (C) coming from psg. B

What I was alluding to in my earlier explanation is simply that (C) is meant to remind us of wording we heard in psg. B, when the author was describing how one makes a "powerful argument".

But the argument made in psg B is NOT a powerful argument itself.

Hope this helps.

[steves]

The above discussion had me convinced until I read through it a 2nd time. The first paragraph of Passage B does seem to cite--and begin to oppose--the argument of Passage A.

[ohthatpatrick]

How so?

The 1st paragraph of Psg B is just launching into the author of Psg B's opinions. He's not citing Psg A's opinions.

Psg B believes that historical scholarship is NOT propaganda --- it's NOT advancing a distorted view of reality to promote a certain agenda. A historian has to have self-discipline and abandon any ideas that fail the test of evidence and logic.

This is all Psg B so far, no opposing argument in sight.

The 2nd paragraph of Psg B seems to go against Psg A a bit, because Psg B is saying "neutrality" is not the same as objectivity. Meanwhile, Psg A said that "Objective historians see their role as that of a neutral judge."

So the 2nd paragraph of B opposes an idea from A.

But that has nothing to do with what the question stem is asking. This isn't a relational question ... it isn't asking "how does the argument in B relate to the argument in A". In THAT case, we could say something to the effect of "some parts of B oppose some parts of A".

Instead, Q27 is saying BOTH passages proceed by doing what?

We can evaluate these answer by reading Psg A or B in a vacuum, because the question stem has nothing to do with how they relate to each other.

We could take a pass through the answers, thinking ONLY about psg. A.

(A) does A cite historical scholarship that failed to be objective? No. Eliminate.

(B) does A show how recent stuff undermines the credibility of historians? Nope. Eliminate.

(C) does A summarize opposing arguments in order to point out their flaws? Not really. There is an opposing relativistic idea in lines 11-15, but the author doesn't go into pointing out its flaws. But maybe we'll keep it and put a squiggly next to it.

(D) does A suggest that historians SHOULD adopt standards of other fields? Nope. Eliminate.

(E) does A identify obstacles to achieving objectivity? Yes.
- separate fact from value
- distinguish history from fiction
- don't advocate
- insulate from political considerations
- avoid bias
- purge external loyalties

We could pretty much pick (E) as our answer right now without ever even consulting psg B. If we're waffling between (C) and (E), though, we can confirm that psg B never brings up an opposing point of view in order to itemize its flaws, and it DOES bring up obstacles to achieving objectivity.