Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S1 · Q20 Reviewer: Many historians claim, in

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Reviewer: Many historians claim, in their own treatment of subject matter, to be as little affected as any natural scientist by moral or aesthetic preconceptions.

Conclusion (clearly)

We cannot accept these proclamations of objectivity. rephrase: These historians who are claiming that in their own treatment of subject matter they are unaffected by any moral or aesthetic preconceptions are wrong; their treatment of subject matter is affected by moral / aesthetic preconceptions.

Evidence (for)

It's easy to find instances of false historical explanations embodying the ideological or other prejudices of their authors.

Evaluate

This is a tough argument to understand, but it boils down to this.

This would be like if we argued,

Just because some NBA players cheat on their spouses doesn't mean we should reject the claims of other NBA players who claim that they don't.

Similarly, just because some historians let their biases affect their work doesn't mean we should dismiss the claims of other historians who claim that they don't less bias affect their work.

Goal

Look for an answer saying,

20.

The reviewer's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. takes for granted that the

    Out of Scope: should

    Since this says takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether this was a Necessary Assumption the argument depended on. Was the author assuming that natural science's model of objectivity should apply to other fields? No, the argument had nothing to do with that. The author was merely saying, "Since other historians have let prejudice influence their work, we can reject the claims of these other historians who are saying that they're using the natural sciences' model of objectivity in their work."

    5% picked this

  2. offers evidence that undermines rather

    Not Internal Contradiction

    This answer refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Self-Contradiction, in which one thing the author says undermines / contradicts something else they say. This answer is almost never correct. The author's conclusion here is that "these historians who claim they're objective aren't really objective", and her evidence is that "these other historians weren't objective in their work". That definitely doesn't undermine or contradict the author's conclusion. If the author pointed to historians whose work was objective, then THAT would undermine the author's conclusion.

    4% picked this

  3. fails to recognize that many

    Weak Objection

    Since this starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken the argument. Would it hurt the argument to say that, "Many historians use methods that are intended to remove bias?" Yes, it goes against the conclusion a little bit, but because the objection is just saying that "many historians use methods that are intended to remove bias", it's a weak objection. The author could say, "I'm sure they intend to be unbiased, but the fact of the matter is the work ends up being biased anyway".

    15% picked this

  4. Correct

    takes for granted that some

    Why this is right

    Since this says takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether this was a Necessary Assumption the argument depended on. Was the author assuming that some historical work that embodies prejudices was written by historians who claim to be objective? Yes! The author thinks that these many historians who claim/purport to be objective are not. He thinks that some of their work embodies prejudices. That's why he's saying, "we can't accept their proclamations of objectivity". If you negate this assumption it's saying, "There are zero instances of historical work that embodies prejudices written by any historian who proclaims to be objective". That would terribly hurt the author's argument, if not outright contradict the conclusion. Another way to think about this answer is that the author is equating these "many historians who claim to be unbiased" with these other works of history that embodied prejudices. She is assuming that in both cases the historians set out to be unbiased, but they end up with explanations that are skewed by their authors' prejudices. The author is assuming it's a fair comparison. But what if those biased examples the author is citing were written by historians who gladly admit to their bias. They weren't trying to be unbiased? That would make it feel totally unfair to compare these examples of biased history to the "many historians" who are claiming to be committed to unbiased history.

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

    64% picked this

  5. fails to recognize that not

    Out of Scope: false

    This is another fails to consider / ignores the possibility answer, so we'll ask ourselves whether it weakens. "Hey, author -- some of these biased historical explanations you're referring to are true!" Does that weaken? No, because the author isn't ever commenting on whether these historical accounts are true or false. He's only rebutting the idea that a historian could write unaffected, unbiased history.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free