#23 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14395)

The correct answer choice is (C)

From the discussion of Passage Similarities in the passage discussion, we can prephrase some possible answers to this Passage Commonality question: both passages discuss the need to abandon biased interpretations
contradicted by the facts, and both of them believe that historians should reject propaganda as
antithetical to objectivity.

Answer choice (A): Neither author discusses the willingness to borrow methods of analysis from
other disciplines as a requirement for historical research.

Answer choice (B): Only the author of passage B would agree that historians should be willing
to employ methodologies favored by proponents of competing views (lines 42-50). The author of
passage B is likely to reject that view.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author of passage A believes that “if an
interpretation is contradicted by the facts, it should be abandoned” (lines 10-11), while the author of
passage B requires practitioners of historical scholarship to “discard pleasing interpretations that fail
elementary tests of evidence and logic” (lines 31-32).

Answer choice (D): Neither author recommends that historians answer in detail all possible
objections that might be made against his or her interpretation. This answer choice contains an
exaggeration and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (E): While the author of passage B would agree that according respectful
consideration to rival interpretations is essential for objective historical research, the author of
passage A would disagree with that view.

[Rita]

Could you please explain why C is a better choice than E? I found evidence for both choices in both passages (summarized below). It seems to me that the passages identify both C and E as requirements for historical research.

C: "The historian's willingness to relinquish favored interpretations in light of the discovery of facts inconsistent with them"
Passage A - "If an interpretation is contradicted by facts, it should be abandoned"
Passage B - "...discard pleasing interpretations that fail elementary tests of evidence and logic"

E: "The historian's willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations"
Passage A - "conclusions should display the judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness..."
Passage B - "one that reveals by its every twist and turn its respectful appreciation of the alternative argument it rejects"

Thanks,
Rita

[David Boyle]

Could you please explain why C is a better choice than E? I found evidence for both choices in both passages (summarized below). It seems to me that the passages identify both C and E as requirements for historical research.

C: "The historian's willingness to relinquish favored interpretations in light of the discovery of facts inconsistent with them"
Passage A - "If an interpretation is contradicted by facts, it should be abandoned"
Passage B - "...discard pleasing interpretations that fail elementary tests of evidence and logic"

E: "The historian's willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations"
Passage A - "conclusions should display the judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness..."
Passage B - "one that reveals by its every twist and turn its respectful appreciation of the alternative argument it rejects"

Thanks,
Rita

Hello Rita,

For answer E, passage A, "conclusions should display the judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness...", may resemble
"respectful consideration to rival interpretations", it's true. It's sort of tricky. But "conclusions should display the judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness..." only sort of implies "respectful consideration to rival interpretations", it doesn't positively "identify" it, as the question stem asks. Also, one can imagine "judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness" without "respectful consideration to rival interpretations"; e.g., it might be "balanced" to dismiss really crazy ideas, like the Easter Bunny, without considering them very respectfully at all, since such ideas are really silly.

Hope this helps,
David

[wannabelawyer]

I also chose (E), and despite the evidence for (C), which I did notice when I went back through the passage, I believe that while “balance and equalhandness” may not equate to “willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations,” the previous line’s statement that “Objective historians see their role as that of a neutral judge, one who must never become an advocate” certainly implies that historians should accord respectful consideration to ALL interpretations.

I don’t like this question. I think both answers are correct.

[James Finch]

Hi wannabelawyer,

This question is asking for what is true of both arguments, not just one or the other. While you can make a case that (E) would implicitly apply to passage A based on the line you cite, passage B has stronger evidence in its final sentence that its author disagrees with (E):

"Authentic objectivity bears no resemblance to the television newscaster’s mechanical gesture of allocating the same number of seconds to both sides of a question, editorially splitting the difference between them, irrespective of their perceived merits."

Be very careful in the comparative passage to note the scope of the question stem: is it asking about something present in both passages, or only one? Here, we need both, and there must be textual evidence to back that up.

Hope this clears things up!