LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 2002

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

Target time: 0:51

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 Q10	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Sampling +Smpl Rule-Application +RuleApp Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 0% 147 B 1% 146 C 98% 159 D 1% 146 E 0% 142	126 132 138	+Easiest	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.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Carla denies Mark’s claim and concludes historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past. To support her claim, Carla poses rhetorical questions and states that the answers would generate a biased version of history.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Carla counters the position held by Mark. She does this by posing questions Mark’s argument fails to consider and states the approach would generate biased versions of history.

contests Mark’s understanding of historical events

Carla does not contest Mark’s understanding. She suggests that Mark’s proposed process would generate biased versions of history.

questions Mark’s presupposition that one person can understand another’s feelings

Carla does not question this presupposition. In fact, it’s implied that Carla agrees that one person can understand another’s feelings because she suggests we can choose between different perspectives.

argues that the selection involved in carrying out Mark’s proposal would distort the result

The selection involved is the selection of choosing which perspective is valid. The distorted result are the biased versions of history Carla claims Mark’s process would produce.

questions whether Mark accurately describes the kind of historical writing he deplores

Mark does not state that he deplores a certain kind of historical writing. We cannot assume that just because Mark prefers historical writing to be done a certain way, Mark deplores other kinds of historical writing.

gives reason to believe that Mark’s recommendation is motivated by his professional self-interest

Carla does not address any of Mark’s self-interests. Carla addresses Mark’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.

LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 10

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