LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 11

Sign up to star your favorites 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.

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 This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	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

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 11

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 11

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel