#21 - Catmull: Although historians consider themselves to be

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

Catmull’s argument in this stimulus is basically this: Because historians never arrive at the same conclusions about specific past events, they never determine exactly what happened. Thus, says Catmull, historians are really more like fiction writers.

So, what is the problem with this logic? Catmull presumes that just because historians arrive at different conclusions, it is all fiction—this is clearly questionable logic.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes the flaw of circular reasoning, which is not present in this stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The flaw in Catmull’s reasoning in found in the presumption that different conclusions mean across-the-board inaccuracy.

Answer choice (C): The author does not assert that historians’ accounts have no value whatsoever, but that they are like fiction, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes the flaw of internal contradiction, which is not present in Catmull’s argument.

Answer choice (E): This choice describes an error in conditional reasoning. Catmull’s error is not based on conditional reasoning, but based on the presumption that lack of consensus means lack of any accurate account.

[Sherry001]

Hi;
for this question I understand why B is the correct answer, however the answer choice states "solely on the basis of the claim.." but I felt that the author provided one other reason by using an analogy.

P1: different historians never arrive at the same conclusion about events.
P2: like novelists, they create interesting stories
C: Thus, Historians never determine what actually happened.

So, I chose this answer choice, only because all the other 4 were terrible, but i was hesitant because its not the only reason the author gave.

Thank you
sherry

[Jon Denning]

Hey Sherry,

Thanks for the question! The analogy that's used here isn't an additional reason for the author's conclusion, but rather it's an attempt to illustrate the singular reason/premise that they never arrive at the same conclusions as each other. The comparison to creating fictional stories is given solely to describe the process of them arriving at different conclusions: instead of consensus, they each create their own unique version of past events. An additional premise would introduce another, new reason to conclude that historians never determine what actually happened, and that's not what the analogy does.

You're right though about eliminating the other four answers, and that raises a powerful point: when you get to harder questions (that is, those later in an LR section), often the best approach to take is one where you look to remove wrong answers, rather than fall in love with a sole choice and pick it. The test makers are great at disguising correct answers, and the disguise becomes more and more confusing as questions get harder, so rather than searching for the correct answer and expecting to see it right away, treat the later questions as an exercise in elimination.

Sounds like you tackled this question with the right perspective, so nice work there! Keep it up!

Jon