Reviewer: Many historians claim, in their own treatment of subject mat

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

If there’s one word that should piss you off on the LSAT, it’s “clearly.” Like “obviously” and “certainly” and “of course,” this word is most commonly used by people who are full of ****. I know, because I use it myself from time to time. When someone says “clearly,” they are often covering up for the fact that their argument has big holes in it. This argument is no exception. The conclusion is, “Historians aren’t objective,” but the only evidence for that assertion is, “There are examples of instances when historians were biased.”

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it paints with an extremely broad brush. One bad apple does not “clearly” ruin the entire barrel. It’s possible that the historians who claim to be unbiased are, indeed, unbiased. Just because some other historians are biased doesn’t implicate every historian. We’re asked to find a reason why the argument is “vulnerable,” i.e., find the flaw in the argument. My prediction here is “paints with too broad a brush.”

A) What? Does the argument even mention a “model of objectivity”? I don’t think it does, so this cannot be the answer.

B) No way. The argument sucks, but it doesn’t suck that bad. The evidence is insufficient to prove its conclusion, yes; but the argument doesn’t actually introduce evidence that runs counter to its own conclusion.

C) I don’t think this can be the answer, because even if it’s true it doesn’t really weaken the argument that much. Suppose you were arguing with the reviewer and you said, “But sir, many historians employ methods to uncover and compensate for their prejudices!” If I were the reviewer, I’d come back with, “Yeah, well, those methods suck. Because like I said, there are many examples of historians being biased.” I’d prefer an answer choice that doesn’t leave the reviewer such an easy retort.

D) I like this one best so far. This one means, “The reviewer has assumed that the historians who claim to be unbiased are, themselves, the same ones who have been shown to be biased.” That’s the problem we identified at the outset. Does the reviewer actually have this evidence, or is it just a big-ass assumption? If it’s just an assumption, which this answer choice indicates, then the reviewer really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I’ll be happy to pick this if we can get past E.

E) What? No, this is beside the point. Truth vs. falsity isn’t at issue here. The only issue is biased vs. unbiased.

Our answer is D, because it points out the argument’s big assumption.
_________________

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. But we clearly cannot accept these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy to find instances of false historical explanations embodying the ideological and other prejudices of their authors.

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

(A) takes for granted that the model of objectivity offered by the natural sciences should apply in other fields. INCORRECT

(B) offers evidence that undermines rather than supports the conclusion it reaches. INCORRECT

(C) fails to recognize that many historians employ methodologies that are intended to uncover and compensate for prejudices. INCORRECT

(D) takes for granted that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective. CORRECT

(E) fails to recognize that not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false. INCORRECT

(A) incorrect because the reviewer does not take this for granted. To take something for granted means to accept it without evidence. The reviewer has not accepted that "the model of objectivity offered by the natural sciences should apply in other fields." Therefore, the argument cannot be vulnerable for this reason.

(B) incorrect because the evidence the reviewer offers does not undermine the conclusion. It merely does not fully support it.

(C) incorrect because it is irrelevant to the argument. Even if answer choice (C) were true, it is not the error in reasoning being made. Therefore, the reviewer's reasoning is not most vulnerable to criticism for this reason.

(D) CORRECT because the reviewer is accepting without evidence that "some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective." However, there is no basis for this. There is no evidence showing that those whose work embodies prejudice and those who purport to be objective are not completely separate groups. If this were to be true, then we could not conclude that "we clearly cannot accept these proclamations of objectivity," because those who purport to be objective do not have work that embodies prejudices.

(E) incorrect because it is much too broad to affect our argument. Failing to recognize that not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false has no bearing on the argument. Therefore, it cannot be the reason why the reviewer's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism.

PS* Not my explanation,
but found it very useful to understand better sharing for better*

Posted from my mobile device

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________