LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 11

June 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT113 S2 Q11
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Sampling +Smpl
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
148
B
10%
155
C
3%
151
D
85%
160
E
0%
150
126
138
150
 +Easier 147.106 +SubsectionMedium

Mark: To convey an understanding of past events, a historian should try to capture what it was like to experience those events. For instance, a foot soldier in the Battle of Waterloo knew through direct experience what the battle was like, and it is this kind of knowledge that the historian must capture.

Carla: But how do you go about choosing whose perspective is the valid one? Is the foot soldier’s perspective more valid than that of a general? Should it be a French or an English soldier? Your approach would generate a biased version of history, and to avoid that, historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past.

Speaker 1 Summary
Mark argues that historians should try to record what it was like to experience past events, which is supported by the reasoning that this approach would convey an understanding of those events. Mark offers the example of a foot soldier’s direct experience of the Battle of Waterloo.

Speaker 2 Summary
Carla claims that historians should instead describe the past in a general and objective way. This is because capturing a direct experience means one must choose which individual’s perspective is most important, which would lead to a biased version of history.

Objective
We need to find a disagreement between Mark and Carla. They disagree about whether historians should try to convey a direct experience of past events.

A
The purpose of writing history is to convey an understanding of past events.
Mark agrees with this, but Carla never disagrees. Carla’s argument never disputes that historians should try to convey an understanding of past events—the issue is just the perspective they use to do so.
B
The participants in a battle are capable of having an objective understanding of the ramifications of the events in which they are participating.
Neither speaker agrees or disagrees with this claim. Mark never even mentions objectivity, and Carla never says whether or not individual soldiers can be capable of objectivity.
C
Historians can succeed in conveying a sense of the way events in the distant past seemed to someone who lived in a past time.
Mark seems to agree with this claim, but Carla doesn’t take a position. Carla’s point is that historians shouldn’t try to convey a personal perspective of past events, whether or not that’s actually possible.
D
Historians should aim to convey past events from the perspective of participants in those events.
Mark agrees and Carla disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Mark’s argument, while Carla’s conclusion is that historians should focus on a general, objective perspective instead (meaning they would not use an individual perspective).
E
Historians should use fictional episodes to supplement their accounts of past events if the documented record of those events is incomplete.
Neither speaker talks about the possible use of fiction to supplement historians’ accounts of past events. Fiction doesn’t come up in this discussion at all.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply