#27 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[nrpandolfo]

Why is E right in #27? Maybe i am misunderstanding the use of "imposition" here, but i thought it meant "to force" so the author is saying:

The study of history is impaired by the force/presence of universal patterns.

But i thought the author didn't believe in universal patterns due to line 49: the particular and unrepeatable details of historical events.

[Alex Bodaken]

nrpandolfo,

Thanks for the question! I think you're really close to working this one out for yourself, and might just be missing a word. You are close about imposition, but it really translates to something more like "burdening." So (E) is really saying:

The study of history is impaired when burdened with universal patterns.

not

The study of history is impaired by the force/presence of universal patterns.

The first (correct) interpretation is an accurate representation of the author's views - she does believe that the study of history has been impaired by those who have tried to foist/burden/impose universal patterns to explain it. Therefore, (E) is our credited answer.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[Nicholas Noyes]

nrpandolfo,

Thanks for the question! I think you're really close to working this one out for yourself, and might just be missing a word. You are close about imposition, but it really translates to something more like "burdening." So (E) is really saying:

The study of history is impaired when burdened with universal patterns.

not

The study of history is impaired by the force/presence of universal patterns.

The first (correct) interpretation is an accurate representation of the author's views - she does believe that the study of history has been impaired by those who have tried to foist/burden/impose universal patterns to explain it. Therefore, (E) is our credited answer.

Hope that helps!
Alex

Hello,

Can you please tell me where in the passage I can look to in order to find where this "universal pattern" is and what it is in particular. I am having difficulty translating this question. I just cannot trace where the answer for E is coming from in this passage.

-Nicholas

[lsacgals101]

Could you help me understand why answer D) is incorrect? Answer D) says "The works of Marx . historical perspective that should be used for studying events in the nineteenth century." And the passage itself suggests that the author believes: "as history has progressed.... revealed as products of their era." This leads me to believe that their perspectives were illustrative of the period they lived in and thus that they should be used for studying events in the nineteenth century.

I see why answer E) could be correct, but when i did the problem, I saw answer E) as a statement about the present... and therefore didn't think it could be correct since the author doesn't believe that history is STILL impaired by the imposition of universal patters.

Would appreciate your help understanding why D) is correct, and why E) is incorrect, given what i wrote above. Thanks!

[amit3]

In the passage, it says "European social and political thought of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" and then talks about Marx and Freud, so D is probably incorrect because one of these theories could be early twentieth and involve a whole different era then nineteenth.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Amit,

I think if we consider the context, the author hasn't limited Marx and Freud to applying exclusively to one century (i.e. the author says "It is not that works such as those of (25) Freud and Marx, written in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were implausible explanations of phenomena that preceded them.") It seems that the author's view here is that the sort of grand theories posited by Marx and Freud ultimately led to a skewed perspective of history, which is what makes (E) the better answer choice.

[jonathan95129]

Hi Amit,

I think if we consider the context, the author hasn't limited Marx and Freud to applying exclusively to one century (i.e. the author says "It is not that works such as those of (25) Freud and Marx, written in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were implausible explanations of phenomena that preceded them.") It seems that the author's view here is that the sort of grand theories posited by Marx and Freud ultimately led to a skewed perspective of history, which is what makes (E) the better answer choice.

Hi Frank,

Doesn't the author not believe in universal patterns? That is why I immediately removed E because it seemed unlikely for someone to think that something which does not exist could impair the study of history. Conversely if the answer choice suggested that Grand Theories, something which the author certainly believes to have existed, impair the study of history then I would understand. An analogous example that I thought of would be an Atheist arguing that God impairs his ability to play sports. What is wrong with this thinking?

[atierney]

Hello,

Yes, it's the latter that is implied by this answer choice. It's basically saying that belief in something has impeded the clarity through which we view the thing studied, here referring to history. Essentially, it's the scope of vision demanded by determinism that renders inadequate the lens through which such historians view history, especially in light of the inevitable randomness under which certain historical events necessarily entertain.

In your analogy, let's assume that the sports player received a sign from God that his team would win the championship if he purposefully injured the star play on the other team. However, doing so resulted in him being ejected from the game, causing his team to play down one player, and actually losing the game handedly because of this. Now, an atheist on the team may have reason to complain about how the belief in God impaired the team. It's not the atheist, but the other non-atheists, with which the atheist must play, that cause an imposition felt by all, including the atheist.

[April30Gang]

I don't get it.

Grand theories in its attempt to explain multiple phenomena with a universal explanation falls short.

How is pattern the same as a law or theory?

Recent lsats are the worst.