Q4 - Lenore: It is naive to think that historical explanatio

[hnadgauda]

L: Historians are always influenced by certain loyalties --> it's naive to think that historical explanations can be objective

V: Biased thinking can be detected and identified --> there are people who can maintain objectivity

Our task is to say why V's response doesn't rebut L's argument. I thought of the following prephrase: the author fails to consider that identifying biased thinking is not the same as being able to get rid of biased thinking let alone getting rid of it in historical explanations.

A: wrong. This is not true.
B: wrong. This is true but not the flaw.
C: wrong. True but not the flaw; the author doesn't need to prove the premises on the LSAT.
D: wrong. True but why would the author need to do this? Irrelevent.
E:
E
I am not sure why E is right. I just know all the other answers are wrong. Can you please help me advocate for E?

[ohthatpatrick]

The question stem is essentially asking us to figure out how Victor's response is a FLAWED (unsuccessful) rebuttal.

Lenore was attempting to show that
historical explanations will always be biased
because
historians are always influenced by numerous factors as they evaluate evidence.

Victor attempts to show that
There ARE unbiased people
on the grounds that
People have recognized cases of biased thinking / sources of bias

We might prephrase an objection to Victor by saying,
"Just because PREM doesn't mean CONC"

"Just because someone can recognize bias in others doesn't mean that THEY are unbiased!"

(A) Lenore was talking about historians being biased in writing history. Victor does not display that type of biased thinking.

(B) Victor is just arguing that "if we can spot bias and sources of bias, than we CAN be objective", not that we always are objective. So he doesn't need to address special cases where they weren't objective.

(C) LSAT doesn't demand details/numbers. The examples aren't going to change the reasoning. We still will wonder if the people who SPOTTED the bias are indeed objective.

(D) Like B, Victor doesn't need to explore all cases of bias. His only logical concern is whether "spotting bias in others and sources of bias means that we CAN be objective".

(E) YES, this names a potential objection that gets to the argument core: "You might be PREM, but still be ANTI-CONC".
These people might be SPOTTING BIAS / AWARE OF IT, but they are still BIASED (NOT-OBJECTIVE)