#20 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lsatmiracle]

hi! i was stuck between C and D and ultimately chose C. is C wrong because passage B doesn't necessarily support the OVERALL argument, but rather agrees with some parts of passage A's argument? i couldn't justify the second half of D ("suggests A carries his position to an unjustifiable extreme). i couldn't find support for that. thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi lsatmiracle,

Yes, it's fair to say that passage B doesn't support the "overall argument" of passage A, because in passage B the author interprets Ricks (rightly or not) as arguing against history itself. We can tell this from a couple places. First, where the author of passage B says that Ricks "is suspicious of historical approaches." Then, the author follows this up at the end of the passage by saying that "bad history is no argument against history itself." The author of passage B takes the overall argument of Ricks in passage A to be anti-historical. And the author of passage B clearly disagrees with that and wants history to be employed (in the best way).

The second half of answer choice C is also problematic. The author isn't just disagreeing with a few details (i.e. names, dates, places, or other specific facts) that Ricks mentions. After all, what would those details be? I can't see any specific details that passage B focuses on. Rather, the author of passage B disagrees with Ricks on a fundamental issue: how should history be used and employed (the issue I mentioned above, with the citations I referenced). In other words, it's a matter of the type of analysis used and not just the details mentioned in using that analysis.

The support for the second half of answer choice D is the statement that "bad history is no argument against history itself." In other words, the author of passage B suggests that Ricks is arguing against history itself, which the author of passage B thinks is an unjustifiably extreme position. The author of passage B would prefer that we (and Ricks) take a more nuanced, less extreme, view: "To reconstruct the attitudes of the past is not necessarily to vindicate them." In other words, the author wants us to reconstruct the attitudes of the past using history (which Ricks doesn't, at least according to this author, seem to want to do). But avoid the mistakes that Ricks rightly critiques (don't necessarily "vindicate" the attitudes of the past).

I hope this helps!

[lsatmiracle]

thank you! that was good!

[Adam Tyson]

clbrogesr asked in another thread:

Why is C wrong and D right?

I think I see now why C was wrong - Author B is not critiquing Author A for projecting the present onto the past, but rather cautioning it. The "supports the overall argument" part in C is correct, but the "errs in some of its details" is not.

However, I am still not fully seeing why D is right. Once C is eliminated (and I had already eliminated the rest of the answers), it is the only defensible choice left, and thus I would choose it. But what threw me off about the answer was the "author of passage A carries his position to an unjustifiable extreme" part.

I'm not sure what "extreme" the answer is talking about. Author A says that we should not completely erase morality from our analysis of the past, but does not project current morality onto the passage, as Author B cautions. What is the "unjustifiable extreme" here? Thanks!

Check out Jeremy's explanation here and let us know if that does the trick!

[clbrogesr]

Check out Jeremy's explanation here and let us know if that does the trick!

His explanation - along with the passage summary/explanation offered on a different page - helped a lot. I think this passage was so confusing for me because I did not fully understand what author B was saying. I understand now that Kewes is staking out a middle position between post-modern reductionism and a purely moral historical approach, particularly one that projects present preoccupations onto the past, which makes it miles easier to see that Kewes does not agree with Ricks' overall argument. Thank you!

[mollylynch]

This passage was hard for me. I am still having trouble seeing how these differ and in relation to this question, how B views A to be anti-historical. Can somebody explain?

[Adam Tyson]

Author B, in speaking about the views expressed by Author A, says:

Yet bad history is no argument against history itself.

This implies that she views his argument as being against history itself. It's anti-historical.

She thinks he has some valid points, but he's too extreme.

[mollylynch]

Can you explain this sentence a little more? Is Author B pointing out that Author A is writing about 'bad history'?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Yes, Molly. Author B is stating that Author A is focused on poorly done history, and using that to lead a charge against history in general. But for Author B, just because some history is done badly doesn't mean we should rule out the whole field.