#12 - No matter how conscientious they are, historians

[jared.xu]

I got this problem wrong because the correct answer (E) makes an assumption that author's suggestion of what historians should do is an attempt at eliminating the effect that historians' biases have on their work. When I read the stimulus I had a different understanding of where the author is taking his or her argument. I interpreted the conclusion to mean that it is no longer important to worry about biases anymore, and that rather than trying to interpret historical events in a neutral fashion, historians should instead unashamedly interpret what participants thought about historical events, as the participants own point of view would certainly have biases. The reason for this conclusion is the premise : "No matter how conscientious they are, historians always have biases that affect their work." Because my assumption is different from the assumption of the correct answer, I eliminated the correct answer choice E. In the end, I chose A for the lack of a better answer. Could you please tell me how I could prevent this type of discrepancy between my interpretation and the interpretation of the correct answer choice from happening in the future? Thank you in advance for replying.

[Nikki Siclunov]

First off, this is not an Assumption question but a Flaw in the Reasoning. Your understanding of the argument is correct, although I am not 100% sure about the assumption that the participants own point of view would certainly have biases. And herein lies the problem: from the way you formulated your question, I can tell you were trying to explain away the faulty logic contained in the conclusion. It seems as if you were rationalizing the author's belief that historians should focus on the participants in historical events, rather than the events themselves; instead, you should have adopted a much more critical attitude towards the argument. What's wrong with the conclusion? Why is it that the shift from interpreting historical events to interpreting the participants' thoughts about these events will be no better at eliminating the biases that affect historians' work?

Yes, the author concedes that no matter how conscientious they are, historians always have biases. However, she never suggested that this is a trivial matter (on the LSAT, a bias is a negative thing). The rest of the argument suggests a way to ameliorate the effect that historians' biases have on their work, but there is no evidence that the proposed shift in focus will do that: it is entirely possible that interpreting the participants' thoughts would be equally biased. If it is, the author's recommendation would make no sense, destroying the argument in the stimulus. Critical thinking is crucial when it comes to LR questions, especially Flaw questions.

[jared.xu]

Thank you so much for the eye-opening reply. Just to clarify, I never meant to hint that I thought this was an assumption question when I used the word "assumption." My problem was with my interpretation. I am a humanities student so I took for granted that history-writing will always contain biases. It never occurred to me that the author was suggesting "a way to ameliorate the effect that historians' biases have on their work." You said that the author never suggested that bias is a trivial thing. But the author never suggested it was a negative thing to be avoided in history-writing either. That is where the discrepancy between my interpretation and the correct answer's interpretation of the author's argument lies. Your statement that on the LSAT a bias is a negative thing is very important to me, and shows the assumption underlying the argument. It goes to show that to do well on the LSAT, one must think like the LSAC test writers and have the same assumptions as them. Am I correct? I would really appreciate any comments you might have. Thank you.

[Nikki Siclunov]

You are 100% correct - to do well on the LSAT, you need to understand the arguments presented in the stimulus. To do really well, however, you need to understand them from the perspective of those who write them. Indeed, any bias - in an argument, in a survey or a study - is a negative thing that affects the reliability of the conclusion drawn from it. It's a classic logical flaw, which you will study in detail when analyzing Flaw in the Reasoning questions.

[avengingangel]

Hey, this post does not address #12 in LR, Sec 3 on the June 2007 LSAT, like the post title suggests. What LR question is this in reference to ?? #12 involves "Novel X" and "Novel Y." Came to the forum hoping to find some help in the explanation of the correct answer to that question..

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Dear Avengingangel,

Thank you for your post! You are correct, this question thread is referring to the September 2007 LR #12, not June 2007. It must have mistakenly been posted in the incorrect place — good catch I have moved this thread to the correct place, and you can find a new thread corresponding to June 2007 LR 2 #12 below. I have notified our instructors to respond to your question shortly

lsat/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=11263&p=26881#p26881

Thank you!

Stephanie

[avengingangel]

Thank you, Stephanie!!