Reading Comprehension

PT133 · S4 · P4 · Q23 Historical Objectivity

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Passage A Central to the historian’s profession and scholarship has been the ideal of objectivity.

Topic

The ideal of objectivity in historical scholarship—what it means and how historians should embody it.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The two passages present different perspectives on the nature and requirements of objectivity for historians: Passage A describes traditional objectivity as neutrality, detachment, and insulation from bias, while Passage B criticizes equating objectivity with neutrality and argues that genuine objectivity involves strong, well-argued positions that fully consider opposing viewpoints. - The "Most Valuable Sentence" in Passage A is: (P3) - The "Most Valuable Sentence" in Passage B is: (P2)

P1 (A): Foundations of the Objectivity Ideal

Here the author describes traditional beliefs about historical objectivity: historians are supposed to stay committed to what really happened in the past, keep fact separate from value judgments, and keep history distinct from fiction.

P2 (A): Facts vs. Interpretation

The passage expands on the ideal: facts should come before any interpretation, and if an interpretation doesn’t fit the facts, it should be ditched. Just because historians disagree about interpretations doesn’t mean the facts themselves are up for grabs.

P3 (A): Historian as Neutral Judge

This paragraph says objective historians should act like neutral judges—no advocacy, no propaganda, no bias, and no political involvement. Their main loyalty should be to historical truth and to others who value that same truth.

23.

Both passages identify which one of the following as a requirement for historical research?

  1. the historian's willingness to borrow

    Out of Scope: other disciplines

    Neither passage talked about borrowing methods of analysis from other disciplines (like from physics, or philosophy, or sociology, etc.).

    1% picked this

  2. the historian's willingness to employ

    Out of Scope: competitors' methodologies

    Neither passage ever talked about employing a competing views' methodologies. Passage B was big on the idea of inhabiting the arguments of competing views, giving them their most charitable consideration before ultimately disagreeing with them. But even there the author of B never says that a historian needs to adopt someone else's methodology.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    the historian's willingness to relinquish

    Why this is right

    The first sentence of Passage B is good support for this: The very possibility of historical scholarship requires them to do such things as abandon wishful thinking, assimilate bad news, and discard pleasing interpretations that fail elementary tests of evidence and logic. "Discarding pleasing interpretations" is a great match for "relinquishing favored interpretations". The best match from Passage A is probably in the 2nd paragraph: if an interpretation is contradicted by the facts, it should be abandoned. "An interpretation contradicted by facts" is a good match for "facts inconsistent with an interpretation". There isn't anything in Passage A that matches up well with "favored interpretations", but this rule being given in the 2nd paragraph would apply to any interpretation that conflicts with the facts. And more broadly the author of A was saying that objective historians shouldn't have partisanship / bias / external loyalties, all of which sound like favoring certain interpretations.

    Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  4. the historian's willingness to answer

    Too Strong: in detail, all objections

    Neither passage says that a historian must be willing to answer in detail all possible objections. Passage B definitely talks about giving opposing views a fair hearing, but it never says that a historian has to be willing to give detailed responses to 100% of possible objections. That's a really tall order. Some possible objections might be silly / trivial / bad faith. Does a historian really have to be willing to answer all those in detail? But even if we could live with Passage B's support for this idea, Passage A doesn't have anything resembling responding to objections in great detail.

    5% picked this

  5. the historian's willingness to accord

    Unsupported Passage A

    This feels pretty well grounded in Passage B's discussion of the powerful argument -- a historian is supposed to respectfully consider and give fair hearing to rival interpretations. But there's nothing in Passage A about rival interpretations or what a historian is required to do with them.

    13% 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