Bunuel wrote:
Prof. Hernandez's monumental work The History of Central America covers everything about the region from the origin of the Mesoamerican period to the end of the Cold War. While the book has several informative maps and charts, many of the chapters spend less time describing facts and more time explaining Prof. Hernandez's theories. Indeed, the last two chapters consist exclusively of his exposition of theory of the role of Central America in post-WWII world politics. Therefore, properly speaking, this book is not a history book.
Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reasons given for that conclusion?
A. Some history books consist almost exclusively of catalogs of historical facts.
B. Different historians have a different understanding of the relative importance between facts and theories within the study of history.
C. Historians should be more explicit than most are now about the theoretical framework with which they write.
D. History as a discipline is concerned only with historical facts, not with the theoretical explanations of those facts.
E. Most books that present a wealth of historical facts include maps and charts as well.
Magoosh Official Explanation
This argument has the form: evidence, evidence, evidence, and then all of a sudden … BAM! This book is not a history book. The author must have a strong assumption about what constitutes the discipline of history. In particular, most of the paragraph is about how Prof. Hernandez book contains more theory and fewer facts, and this appears to be the grounds for the judgment. Therefore, we need an assumption that connects a focus on facts to the definition of history.
(D) is the credited response. If it were true that history is concerned only with facts, not theories, this would explain why Prof. Hernandez's theory-heavy book is not a history book. This is the correct assumption. (BTW, outside of this particular question, this is definitely NOT the general assumption in the field if history itself. It sound very much like Prof. Hernandez, and not the author of this argument, really understands how modern historical studies operate.)
(A) and (B) both leave open a variety of interpretations about what constitutes history, so both would allow for classifying Prof. Hernandez's book as a history book.
(C) is more a recommendation than an assumption, and it appears to favor a theoretical approach, which apparently is precisely what the author of this argument finds problematic about Prof. Hernandez's book.
(E) is irrelevant --- it picks up on one small detail of the prompt, and does not address the main issue: what constitutes history as a discipline?