Self-study
Passage A.
P1
███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █ ███████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████
Historical scholarship ·
Ideal of objectivity is central
P2
█████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████████████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ █████████
Facts vs. interpretations ·
Judge interpretations based on how well they account for the facts
According to the objectivity ideal, historians can have different interpretations of an event, but that doesn't mean the events don't have a fixed meaning.
P3
█████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ███████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████
Analogy to judges ·
Objective historians are like neutral judges; they should not advocate
Historians should be balanced and nonbiased.
███████ █
P4
███ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ████ ███████████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████
Historical scholarship ·
Requires self-discipline to be different from propaganda
P5
███ ████████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████████████ ███
Objectivity vs. neutrality ·
Historians can be objective without being neutral
Objectivity is about detaching from values for the purpose of achieving a deeper understanding. But it's OK to have values.
Elaboration ·
Objectivity is embodied in a powerful argument
To make a powerful argument, a historian must be objective in that they anticipate and take into account counter-arguments.
P6
████ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████████████████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████████████████ █████ ████ ██████ ███████████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ █ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████
Elaboration ·
Powerful arguments are objective, but not neutral
They reflect actual historical interpretation and how humans think. Real objectivity can involve taking a side and being an advocate.
Passage Style
22.
Both passages are concerned with █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
What are the ████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████████████
Neither passage provides an answer to this question. Although we can infer that each passage believes a lack of adherence to its definition of objectivity would constitute a flaw in historical scholarship, we don’t know that each passage would count this kind of flaw as among the “most serious” flaws. We also don’t know anything about what’s in “recent” scholarship.
b
What must historians ██ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ████████████
Answering this question was part of each passage’s purpose. Although only Passage A uses the specific word “bias,” having objectivity is synonymous with “avoiding bias.” As long as both passages tell us what’s required for objectivity, they’re also telling us what’s required in order to avoid bias.
Passage A is written to argue that objectivity (avoidance of bias) requires neutrality. As part of its argument, Passage A explains that
Passage B is written to argue that objectivity (avoidance of bias)
c
How did the █████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████████
Both passages refer to the ideal of objectivity among historians; but neither passage describes how this ideal first came about. We know nothing about the origin of this ideal.
d
Is the scholarship ████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██████
Passage B doesn’t refer to relativist historians or describe any scholarship that fits the kind of scholarship those historians might generate. So, we don’t know Passage B’s opinion about the soundness of relativist historians’ scholarship. That’s enough to eliminate this answer.
Passage A also doesn’t provide an answer to this question. Although the author disagrees with one view of relativist historians – the view that different interpretations of an event implies lack of fixed or absolute meanings of an event – this doesn’t mean the author thinks the scholarship of these historians is unsound. Passage A never describes what is typically in their scholarship or how often it makes arguments based on the idea that events lack fixed or absolute meanings.
e
Why do the ██████████ ███████████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ █████
As with all the other wrong answers, neither passage answers this question. Passage B doesn’t suggest that interpretations change over time. And, although Passage A acknowledges that different generations have set forth different interpretations of past events, it never explains why interpretations change.