PT135.S2.Q12 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 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 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 135 - Section 2 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action