PT118.S1.Q20 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that many historians who claim that they are objective are actually not objective. This is based on the fact that it’s easy to find examples of non-objective historical explanations.

The author points to examples of non-objective explanations in order to show that the historians who say they are objective are actually not objective. But the author never establishes that the examples of non-objective explanations came from any of the historians who say they’re objective.

The author never suggests that scientific objectivity “should” apply in other fields. The author simply tries to show that certain historians are not objective. Whether they should or should not be objective is not something the author has an opinion about.

The fact there are examples of non-objective explanations doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion. Although these examples don’t establish the conclusion, that doesn’t mean they tend to show that the conclusion is false.

Whether many historians use methods that are “intended” to compensate for prejudices doesn’t affect the author’s reasoning. The author has found examples of non-objective explanations. The issue is whether these come from the historians who say they’re objective.

The author assumes that some of the non-objective explanations come from the historians who say they’re objective. We know this is an assumption, because if it weren’t true, then the author’s examples wouldn’t show that the historians who say they’re objective are non-objective.

Whether explantions that embody ideologies are false has no impact on the argument. Those explanations can still be non-objective, even if they’re not false.

PrepTest 118 - Section 1 - Question 20

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action