LSAT 135 – Section 2 – Question 12

LSAT 135 - Section 2 - Question 12

December 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:53

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
PT135 S2 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
6%
157
B
0%
150
C
1%
155
D
1%
151
E
92%
163
124
135
146
 +Easier 146.729 +SubsectionMedium

No matter how conscientious they are, historians always have biases that affect their work. Hence, rather than trying to interpret historical events, historians should instead interpret what the people who participated in historical events thought about those events.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that historians should interpret what people who participated in historical events thought about those events, instead of trying to interpret the historical events themselves. This is because historians always have biases that affect their work.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the people who participated in historical events do not always have biases that affect their work. This overlooks the possibility that focusing on interpreting what people who participated in historical events thought would result in work that is equally biased as work based on the historian’s own interpretations.

A
historians who have different biases often agree about many aspects of some historical events
The fact that historians might often agree doesn’t change the fact that their work is always biased. The author wants historians to avoid such bias; the author didn’t assume that there’s never any agreement.
B
scholars in disciplines other than history also risk having their biases affect their work
Whether scholars other than historians are biased has no effect on whether historians should rely on the accounts of people who participated in events for their work. There’s no indication that the people who participated in events are scholars in other disciplines.
C
many of the ways in which historians’ biases affect their work have been identified
We already know historians are biased. The author wants to avoid those biases. Identification of those biases doesn’t affect the argument unless we have some reason to think we can remove those biases.
D
not all historians are aware of the effect that their particular biases have on their work
We already know historians are biased. If historians are not aware of those biases, that doesn’t constitute a reason why they should not focus on interpreting the accounts of people who participated in events.
E
the proposed shift in focus is unlikely to eliminate the effect that historians’ biases have on their work
This possibility, if true, shows that the author’s recommended solution doesn’t make any more sense than having historians themselves interpret historical events. Work based on their own interpretations might be biased, but so will work based on others’ interpretations.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply