- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:00 am
#36283
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus begins with the classic argument introduction device, “Many historians claim…” As
is often the case when this construction is used, the author’s argument is that the historians’ claims
are incorrect. Specifi cally, the reviewer explains that many historians claim to be basically objective,
but that we cannot accept their claims because it is easy to fi nd instances of false, non-objective
historical explanations.
The reviewer’s reasoning is weak, particularly because anyone, not merely historians, can offer
historical explanations, and it might be the historical explanations of non-historians which contain
instances of bias. In addition, the existence of false explanations only proves that some historians are
not objective, and it does not prove that many historians are not objective. The reviewer specifi cally
notes that many historians claim objectivity, and that just indicates that a substantial number claim
objectivity. So, when the reviewer concludes that the claims of these many historians are false, the
reviewer draws an exaggerated conclusion.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus does not take this for granted. The reviewer simply rejects the
claims that the historians made about their objectivity; the reviewer then makes statements about
historical explanations, and does not offer a view about other fi elds.
Answer choice (B): While the evidence does not establish the conclusion, it does not undermine the
conclusion, either. The evidence is consistent with either accepting or denying the conclusion, which
means that the evidence is simply not compelling.
Answer choice (C): This choice is irrelevant because the reviewer does not need to take the
historian’s methodologies into account. Whether historians employ these methods or not, their output
can still be prejudiced. If their output is fl awed, then the reviewer’s premise regarding the existence
of instances of false explanations is not undermined. Consequently, although this is an attractive
answer choice, it does not reveal a fl aw in the reviewer’s reasoning.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The reviewer argues that instances of false
historical explanations show that the objectivity claims of many historians are false. Thus, since the
explanations are not clearly stated to have come from the historians, the reviewer must assume, or
take for granted, that at least some of the prejudicial works come from those historians who claim to
be objective.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice, along with answer choice (C), was one of the two most
popular incorrect answers. However, like (C), this answer choice misses the mark by addressing an
issue that appears to involve one of the reviewer’s premises, but actually leaves that premise intact
and the argument unscathed.
Just because not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false does not prove that there
are not instances of false historical explanations that do embody ideological prejudices. Because
the reviewer’s argument is not built on the premise that all historical explanations embodying
ideological prejudices are false (just that some are), this answer does not point out a fl aw in the
reviewer’s argument.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus begins with the classic argument introduction device, “Many historians claim…” As
is often the case when this construction is used, the author’s argument is that the historians’ claims
are incorrect. Specifi cally, the reviewer explains that many historians claim to be basically objective,
but that we cannot accept their claims because it is easy to fi nd instances of false, non-objective
historical explanations.
The reviewer’s reasoning is weak, particularly because anyone, not merely historians, can offer
historical explanations, and it might be the historical explanations of non-historians which contain
instances of bias. In addition, the existence of false explanations only proves that some historians are
not objective, and it does not prove that many historians are not objective. The reviewer specifi cally
notes that many historians claim objectivity, and that just indicates that a substantial number claim
objectivity. So, when the reviewer concludes that the claims of these many historians are false, the
reviewer draws an exaggerated conclusion.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus does not take this for granted. The reviewer simply rejects the
claims that the historians made about their objectivity; the reviewer then makes statements about
historical explanations, and does not offer a view about other fi elds.
Answer choice (B): While the evidence does not establish the conclusion, it does not undermine the
conclusion, either. The evidence is consistent with either accepting or denying the conclusion, which
means that the evidence is simply not compelling.
Answer choice (C): This choice is irrelevant because the reviewer does not need to take the
historian’s methodologies into account. Whether historians employ these methods or not, their output
can still be prejudiced. If their output is fl awed, then the reviewer’s premise regarding the existence
of instances of false explanations is not undermined. Consequently, although this is an attractive
answer choice, it does not reveal a fl aw in the reviewer’s reasoning.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The reviewer argues that instances of false
historical explanations show that the objectivity claims of many historians are false. Thus, since the
explanations are not clearly stated to have come from the historians, the reviewer must assume, or
take for granted, that at least some of the prejudicial works come from those historians who claim to
be objective.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice, along with answer choice (C), was one of the two most
popular incorrect answers. However, like (C), this answer choice misses the mark by addressing an
issue that appears to involve one of the reviewer’s premises, but actually leaves that premise intact
and the argument unscathed.
Just because not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false does not prove that there
are not instances of false historical explanations that do embody ideological prejudices. Because
the reviewer’s argument is not built on the premise that all historical explanations embodying
ideological prejudices are false (just that some are), this answer does not point out a fl aw in the
reviewer’s argument.
