PT128 · S3 · Q22 Critic: Historians purport to discover

It doesn't matter whether historians have the same presuppositions or different ones. All the author/argument cares about is that a given historian's presuppositions get reflected by what the historian has chosen to include/exclude and thereby what pattern they have imposed.

This may seem like an inference we could take away from the premise (Hey, if historians are imposing patterns, then they're all arbitrary and no one knows whether the pattern is real or not). But it's too strong and has nothing to do with the reasoning move to the conclusion. 1st: we aren't in the business of trying to figure out what can be inferred from a premise. If that's why we're liking an answer on NA, we want to remind ourselves that we're looking at the wrong place. Our answer should deal with the move to the conclusion, not just with a premise. 2nd: negating this doesn't hurt the argument. If there is a way to determine with certainty whether a historian's imposed pattern is actually present, that doesn't hurt the author. The author could happily accept that there are ways with certainty to know that a historian's imposed pattern is not actually present.

There's no reason the author needs to think that the patterns historians impose apply to many different eras. If the patterns they impose supposedly apply to only a few eras, that doesn't hurt the argument in any way.

The word "most" is super sketchy in NA. Who cares if 51% vs. 49% of historians can become aware of their own assumptions? All the author cares about are whether those assumptions are reflected in the patterns historians impose via including/excluding certain things. "Awareness" wouldn't be relevant unless we were saying that historians could become aware of their assumptions and make sure not to let those assumptions affect the way they choose what to include/exclude.