A survey of historians shows

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no other sources5% picked this

   there are no potential sources for historical understanding other than written texts

   The author has not committed to the crazy-extreme claim that the only potential sources for historical understanding are 1. written texts 2. the arts If we negated this "assumption", it would be saying "There are potential sources of of historical understanding beyond both written texts and the arts". Would that weaken? No, that would only strengthen the author's argument. The more potential sources are out there, the easier it is for this author to argue that these historians are neglecting some important sources.

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong: only6% picked this

   painting, architecture, music, dance, and culinary arts are important only as sources

   The author never committed to the extreme sounding idea that "the only value that fields like architecture / music / cooking have are as sources of historical understanding." Architecture is only important as a source for historical understanding? Not important as a source of shelter? If we negated this and said that, "arts are important for reasons in addition to being important sources of historical understanding" it wouldn't hurt the argument in any way.

   6%
3. C

   Correct60% picked this

   there are no sources for historical understanding that are neither considered best by historians nor

   Why this is right

   I think they want us to go cross-eyed while processing this answer, but we certainly have to consider it, since we were looking for "if not best, then neglect". The syntax of the sentence is "There are no X's that are neither Y nor Z." How can we clean that up? If you need to, think of a real world statement that fits that syntax: "There are no Presidents that are neither former military nor college graduates." This would mean, "every President was either former military, a college graduate, or both." No X is neither Y nor Z = Every X is at least one of those two things. No sources are neither best nor neglected, every source is at least one of those two Every source of historical understanding is either considered best, neglected, or both. Hence, we can derive conditionals like this: if a source isn't the best, it's neglected if a source isn't neglected, it's the best When we know that "at least one of Y and Z is true", then that allows us to write conditionals like "If Y is false, then Z must be true" and "If Z is false, then Y must be true". Phew, still alive? We were looking for this missing link: "if historians don't consider it the best, then they will neglect it" That's what this cruel absurdity of an answer choice gave us. if a source isn't the best, it's neglected

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   60%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   something other than written texts is the best source for

   If we negated this, it would be saying "written texts are the best source". That wouldn't weaken the author's argument. The author isn't disagreeing with historians' assessment of the best. He's just assuming that they won't bother consulting sources of info that aren't the best, and in so doing they'll be neglecting important sources like the arts. Our author can agree that written texts are the best, but still think that other sources are important sources, which historians are neglecting.

   9%
5. E

   Opposite20% picked this

   the other sources for historical understanding mentioned by the historians surveyed are not important repositories

   The author was assuming that the sources she was naming, such as painting/music/dance, are important repositories of historical knowledge. That's how the author was making her case. Historians don't think these (important repositories) are the best source. Thus, historians are neglecting important repositorites.

   20%