#8 - Main Point

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14636)

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (C)

Since this is a Main Point question, we should attempt to form a prephrase before beginning to assess
the answer choices. The main point of this passage, roughly, is to introduce historiography and discuss
the need to include early settlers’ actions as a source of historical information.

Answer choice (A): Part of the point of this passage is that historiographers need to expand their
definition of a source if they are to have a complete understanding of the development of the landscape.
If historiographers need to pay attention to non-written evidence made by Chinese settlers, it must be
that this new evidence would offer some insight, so it seems highly unlikely that such new sources might
simply confirm what historians already knew.

Answer choice (B): The passage suggested that the attention to the influence of Chinese settlers is
recent, but that doesn’t mean that historiographers have traditionally assumed that such evidence is
irrelevant. They might simply have failed to see the existence of such evidence.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it sums up the author’s main point in writing
this passage. The author states in lines 15-17 that historiographers have recognized a need to expand
their definition a source, and in lines 54-60 the author states that historiographers cannot understand the
development of the U.S. Pacific Coast without considering the actions of Chinese settlers.

Answer choice (D): Since the passage never suggests that Pacific Coast historiographers are divided over
whether to pay attention to new types of evidence, this answer choice is unfounded. Furthermore, since
historiographers recognize the need for new types of evidence, there appears to be some consensus.
Finally, adding a new type of evidence is not the same as challenging a methodological foundation.

Answer choice (E): The author’s point is not that until recently accounts have been inaccurate, but rather
incomplete. Further, since the author explicitly confines the discussion to the historiography of the

[lemonade42]

Hi!

I'm having trouble understanding why (D) is wrong. The book says that the passage never suggests that Pacific Coast historiographers are divided over whether to pay attention to new types of evidence and that (D) is unfounded. But isn't it stated in line 15, that "some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is" highlighting how some historiographers recognized and some did not recognize, so they are divided? So isn't the incorporation of new evidence from Chinese settlers, making them expand their definition, which means they are changing their methods of historiography? (because I thought definitions belonged to methods)

[Luke Haqq]

Hi lemonade42!

You comment,

But isn't it stated in line 15, that "some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is" highlighting how some historiographers recognized and some did not recognize, so they are divided?

I don't think that it follows from the quoted material that there must have been division. Yes, some historiographers recognized this new need, but there's nothing explicitly stating or even implying that other historiographers disagreed with them. It's possible that, when the group of historiographers recognized the need to expand their definition of a source, all the others could have agreed.

There would need to be something more, such as another paragraph in the passage that unpacks a particular debate among historiographers. Moreover, it'd need to be pretty clear that this pertains to the "methodological foundations" of historiography. However, something like that is missing from the passage as it currently stands.