Central to the historians profession and scholarship has been the ide

Question

Passage A

Central to the historian’s profession and
scholarship has been the ideal of objectivity. The
assumptions upon which this ideal rests include a
commitment to the reality of the past, a sharp separation
  (5)   between fact and value, and above all, a distinction
between history and fiction.

According to this ideal, historical facts are prior
to and independent of interpretation: the value of an
interpretation should be judged by how well it accounts
  (10)   for the facts; if an interpretation is contradicted by
facts, it should be abandoned. The fact that successive
generations of historians have ascribed different
meanings to past events does not mean, as relativist
historians claim, that the events themselves lack fixed
  (15)   or absolute meanings.

Objective historians see their role as that of a
neutral judge, one who must never become an
advocate or, worse, propagandist. Their conclusions
should display the judicial qualities of balance and
  (20)   evenhandedness. As with the judiciary, these qualities
require insulation from political considerations, and
avoidance of partisanship or bias. Thus objective
historians must purge themselves of external loyalties;
their primary allegiance is to objective historical truth
  (25)   and to colleagues who share a commitment to its
discovery.

Passage B

The very possibility of historical scholarship as
an enterprise distinct from propaganda requires of its
practitioners that self-discipline that enables them to
  (30)   do such things as abandon wishful thinking, assimilate
bad news, and discard pleasing interpretations that fail
elementary tests of evidence and logic.

Yet objectivity, for the historian, should not be
confused with neutrality. Objectivity is perfectly
  (35)   compatible with strong political commitment. The
objective thinker does not value detachment as an end
in itself but only as an indispensable means of achieving
deeper understanding. In historical scholarship, the
ideal of objectivity is most compellingly embodied in
  (40)   the powerful argument—one that reveals by its every
twist and turn its respectful appreciation of the
alternative arguments it rejects. Such a text attains
power precisely because its author has managed to
suspend momentarily his or her own perceptions so as
  (45)   to anticipate and take into account objections and
alternative constructions—not those of straw men, but
those that truly issue from the rival’s position,
understood as sensitively and stated as eloquently as
the rival could desire. To mount a telling attack on a
  (50)   position, one must first inhabit it. Those so habituated
to their customary intellectual abode that they cannot
even explore others can never be persuasive to anyone
but fellow habitués.

Such arguments are often more faithful to the
  (55)   complexity of historical interpretation—more faithful
even to the irreducible plurality of human perspectives—
than texts that abjure position-taking altogether. The
powerful argument is the highest fruit of the kind of
thinking I would call objective, and in it neutrality
  (60)   plays no part. Authentic objectivity bears no 
resemblance to the television newscaster’s mechanical 
gesture of allocating the same number of seconds to both 
sides of a question, editorially splitting the difference 
between them, irrespective of their perceived merits.    1 
 1. Both passages are concerned with answering which one of the following questions?

(A) What are the most serious flaws found in recent historical scholarship?
(B) What must historians do in order to avoid bias in their scholarship?
(C) How did the ideal of objectivity first develop?
(D) Is the scholarship produced by relativist historians sound?
(E) Why do the prevailing interpretations of past events change from one era to the next?

2 
 2. Both passages identify which one of the following as a requirement for historical research?

(A) the historian’s willingness to borrow methods of analysis from other disciplines when evaluating evidence
(B) the historian’s willingness to employ methodologies favored by proponents of competing views when evaluating evidence
(C) the historian’s willingness to relinquish favored interpretations in light of the discovery of facts inconsistent with them
(D) the historian’s willingness to answer in detail all possible objections that might be made against his or her interpretation
(E) the historian’s willingness to accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations

3 
 3. The author of passage B and the kind of objective historian described in passage A would be most likely to disagree over whether

(A) detachment aids the historian in achieving an objective view of past events
(B) an objective historical account can include a strong political commitment
(C) historians today are less objective than they were previously
(D) propaganda is an essential tool of historical scholarship
(E) historians of different eras have arrived at differing interpretations of the same historical events

4 
 4. Which one of the following most accurately describes an attitude toward objectivity present in each passage?

(A) Objectivity is a goal that few historians can claim to achieve.
(B) Objectivity is essential to the practice of historical scholarship.
(C) Objectivity cannot be achieved unless historians set aside political allegiances.
(D) Historians are not good judges of their own objectivity.
(E) Historians who value objectivity are becoming less common.

5 
 5. Both passages mention propaganda primarily in order to

(A) refute a claim made by proponents of a rival approach to historical scholarship
(B) suggest that scholars in fields other than history tend to be more biased than historians
(C) point to a type of scholarship that has recently been discredited
(D) identify one extreme to which historians may tend
(E) draw contrasts with other kinds of persuasive writing

6 
 6. The argument described in passage A and the argument made by the author of passage B are both advanced by

(A) citing historical scholarship that fails to achieve objectivity
(B) showing how certain recent developments in historical scholarship have undermined the credibility of the profession
(C) summarizing opposing arguments in order to point out their flaws
(D) suggesting that historians should adopt standards used by professionals in certain other fields
(E) identifying what are seen as obstacles to achieving objectivity

gokul5544 · Answer

Can you post the solution to Question 6?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. The argument described in passage A and the argument made by the author of passage B are both advanced by

Difficulty Level:   600

Explanation

The solution is to have a good idea of what’s in the passage, and assume an answer probably isn’t right unless it matches your memory of the passage.

(A)  Neither passage cites any scholarship.

(B)  The passages never talk about any recent developments.

(C)  The authors never gave opposing arguments.

(D)  The passages never mention other fields.

(E)  CORRECT. See  lines 22-26  and  lines 27-32.

Answer: E

VidishaBanerjee · Answer

Please provide the official explanation of question no. 2.

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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

Difficulty Level:   Hard

Explanation

The right answer needs to be in both passages. As with question 1, most answers aren’t mentioned in either passage, so it’s best to eliminate those first, then prove one of the remaining answers correct using the passage. I used this technique to quickly decide between  C  and  E . It was easy to check both of them using the passage, once I had eliminated the other answers.

(A)  Neither passage mentions other disciplines. Paragraph 1 of passage B mentions  “self-discipline” . This answer choice was probably trying to confuse you by hoping you would remember the word  “discipline” , out of context.

(B)  Outside knowledge makes this answer tempting, as this sounds like a reasonable tactic. But, neither passage mentions methodologies. Common sense can be used to judge whether an answer is reasonable, but answers still need support from the passage to be correct.

(C) CORRECT.  See  paragraph 2  of  passage A  and  lines 30-32  of  passage B.

(D)  This answer is insane, if taken literally. And you have to take LSAT answers literally. This says a historian must answer all objections. That means if I say  “this theory doesn’t cure cancer!”  then the historian must address my crazy concern. Of course, the real reason this answer is wrong is because it’s not mentioned in the passage. But our common sense judgement that this answer is insane tells us that neither author would ever say it. This makes it a prime candidate for fast elimination.

(E)  Tempting, but passage A doesn’t mention rival interpretations, or giving  “consideration”  to interpretations.  Paragraph 2  says interpretations are not that important: they are valuable only if they accord with and explain facts.

Answer: C

Agarwal2003 · Answer

Sajjad1994 
Can you pls explain Question 1

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. Both passages are concerned with answering which one of the following questions?

Explanation

Although they have different definitions of the concept, both passages discuss the idea of objectivity.

A. No.  The passages are concerned with what objectivity means in historical interpretations, not with the flaw found in recent historical scholarship.

B.  Yes.   The passages are concerned with what objectivity means in historical interpretations.

C. No.  The passages are concerned with what objectivity means in historical interpretations, not with the history of the idea of objectivity.

D. No.  Relativist historians are mentioned only in passage A.

E. No.  The passages are concerned with what objectivity means in historical interpretations, not with why interpretations of past events change from era to era.

Answer: B

Disha4s · Answer

please explain QUESTION 5

Central to the historians profession and scholarship has been the ide

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Central to the historians profession and scholarship has been the ide

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards