PT82.S3.Q22(P4) & Q27- Social historians have noted

HelloLsat

I want to start with Q27 first. I have read the reasoning behind why (D) is incorrect, and somehow agree, but I absolutely dont see why (E) is correct.

The author doesn't state history is impaired by universal patterns, atleast nowhere where he doesnt use the word "Perhaps".
Here are the following places where he atleast mentions his views against univervsal patterns in the last paragraph.

---

"But perhaps this discomfort is no bad thing...relinquish the vain hope for inevitability and hence restore us to the contemplation of historical contingency...all of which can serve as stimuli to serious thought.

"Perhaps what is needed is a historical perspective...the particular and unrepeatable details of historical events."

---

The only phrase that i can find that sort of supports (E) is that the author uses "vain hope", but the following part of the sentence doesn't talk about unversal patterns at all...

Can someone please enlighten me about which part of the passage allows us to assume (E)? Or does "Perhaps" indicate a sense of strong agreement instead of being aware of a possibility?

For Q22, I chose (C), and I later understood that the first part of the sentence "Though seductive in their logic and coherence" makes it incorrect. However, doesnt (E) also rely on the word "perhaps" to indicate a sense of strong agreement?

Thankyou so much who anyone that can help. This is really confusing

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#(P#) - [brief description of stimulus]" Also best to post one question per discussion at a time!

Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-3-passage-4-passage/
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-3-passage-4-questions/

Regis_Phalange63

It is explicitly stated at the end of Paragraph 1 that historical determinism is the view that history develops according to universal laws. I think it's safe enough to say historical determinism = universal patterns for the sake of D) in Q27. And grand theories naturally tend toward universal patterns as well. And Paragraph 2 is all about how bad these theories are. Even though the author acknowledges why people would have nostalgia for these theories, the second half of the last paragraph once again discredits grand theories as she is proceeding with an alternative proposal. She thinks history should be explained by means of constraining laws as opposed to necessitating(=universal patterns) laws. The very last sentence highlights that history really shouldn't be something that's fully determined. All of these help us infer that the study of history is impaired/hampered/prevented by the imposition of universal patterns as the alternative option proposed is almost diametrically opposed to historical determinism.

Regis_Phalange63

Q22 is a MP question so the gist of the passage must be captured, which is the author's proposal of an alternative approach to history: history should not be historically determined/universal. It should restore us to the contemplation of historical contingency.

I notice that you're paying attention to the word "perhaps" in the passage. The author concedes and even shows sympathy to those that fall for the "attraction" of grand theories. But that's it. That's only a peripheral part of her central argument. The author says narrative satisfaction can be obtained by means of her proposal. Did we get narrative satisfaction from grand theories? That's unclear. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the author does NOT like grand theories so we can't choose answer choice that ends with a positive feature of grand theories. Compare your low res with JY's. If they were similar, your low res could have led you to eliminate E pretty confidently.

atw_______

She thinks history should be explained by means of constraining laws as opposed to necessitating(=universal patterns) laws.

Why is a constraining law inherently not a universal law? A law prohibiting murder is a constraining law that still presumably applies universally. Similarly, the scientific "law" that matter cannot be created or destroyed seems like a "constraining" law that is also universal.

She certainly seems to believe that some universal patterns impair the study of history, but simultaneously proposes the use of "laws that constrain."

I feel generally confused about what she's arguing for at the end of the passage. Maybe it would be useful to understand an example of what you think she meant by "laws that constrain," as I don't see how a non-universal law would be a law at all, or why a constraining law can't be universal.