As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the

Question

As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the details of historical events and motivations has replaced the previous emphasis on overarching historical trends and movements, with the result that the latter are often overlooked. In consequence, the ominous parallels that may exist between historical trends and current trends are also overlooked, which lessens our ability to learn from history.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Studying the details of historical events and motivations lessens our ability to learn from history.
(B) Overarching historical trends and movements can be discerned only when details of historical events and motivations are not emphasized.
(C) Those who attend to overall trends and movements in history and not to details are the best able to learn from history.
(D) A change in emphasis in the interpretation of history has lessened our ability to learn from history.
(E) History should be interpreted in a way that gives equal emphasis to overarching historical trends and movements and to the details of historical events and motivations.

blaze111 · Answer

Ok let's try to understand the structure first

Premise  - new trend emphasizes on details has replaced overarching historical trends. in simple words people are focusing more nor more on details rather than over arcing historical trends.

Conclusion  - In simple words The conclusion could be that because of the above stated fact, The parallel that could be drawn between historical trend and the current trend is is not happening so much and this lessons the ability to learn from history.

The question asks us to find an option which strengthens the conclusion that - yes! our ability to learn from history has reduced

A. this kind of reinstates the premise which is already been talked in the argument. Fact repeated again -  Incorrect

B. This option talks about how the previous trend could be discerned and not how it lessens our ability to learn from history.  Incorrect

C. This is out of scope. we cannot stand in the argument by saying which is the best method to learn from history. Our aim is to find a reason which strengthens are conclusion. Stick to that. Incorrect

D.  Correct answer- this option says that if if we we do not interpret history correctly it will lessen our ability to learn.

E. This option could be looked upon as a solution to the problem( lessen the ability to learn) which the author has stated in the argument. it states what should be done to narrow the gap between the previous trend and the new trend Incorrect

abhishekmayank · Answer

From where the interpretation is coming when we are only concerned with the way of writing the history? Can anybody help in it ?

unraveled · Answer

As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the details of historical events and motivations has replaced the previous emphasis on overarching historical trends and movements, with the result that the latter are often overlooked. In consequence,  the ominous parallels that may exist  between historical trends and current trends are also overlooked, which lessens our ability to learn from history.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A)  Studying the details of historical events and motivations  lessens our ability to learn from history. - WRONG. 2nd best choice for me. But it is not necessarily true as other parameters too play their role which we don't know. 
(B) Overarching historical trends and movements  can be discerned only when  details of historical events and motivations are not emphasized. - WRONG. Situation reversal may or may not be true.
(C) Those who  attend to overall trends and movements in history and not to details  are the best able to learn from history. - WRONG. Which part helps in understanding more or less is not quatifiable. Additonally, it does not address the conclusion as D does.
(D) A  change in emphasis in the interpretation of history  has lessened our ability to learn from history. - CORRECT. Parallels parallels interpretation here. 
(E) History  should be interpreted in a way that gives equal emphasis  to overarching historical trends and movements and to the details of historical events and motivations. - WRONG. The conclusion is beyond the emphasis that this choice talks about. So, most obvious choice would be that one which relates to the conclusion.

Answer D.

atrhn · Answer

Although all other choices apart from Option D are incorrect. Option D is also a little unclear as there isn't a change in the "interpretation" of history anywhere.

The stem just says that there has been a shift in the method it was studied- shifting from details to trends.

Can anyone explain this?

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

As part of a new trend in the writing of history, an emphasis on the

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