LSAT 118 – Section 1 – Question 20

LSAT 118 - Section 1 - Question 20

December 2004

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:24

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
PT118 S1 Q20
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
5%
159
B
3%
157
C
17%
161
D
62%
167
E
13%
160
151
160
169
 +Hardest 148.411 +SubsectionMedium

Reviewer: Many historians claim, in their own treatment of subject matter, to be as little affected as any natural scientist by moral or aesthetic preconceptions. But we clearly cannot accept these proclamations of objectivity, for it is easy to find instances of false historical explanations embodying the ideological and other prejudices of their authors.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that many historians who claim that they are objective are actually not objective. This is based on the fact that it’s easy to find examples of non-objective historical explanations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author points to examples of non-objective explanations in order to show that the historians who say they are objective are actually not objective. But the author never establishes that the examples of non-objective explanations came from any of the historians who say they’re objective.

A
takes for granted that the model of objectivity offered by the natural sciences should apply in other fields
The author never suggests that scientific objectivity “should” apply in other fields. The author simply tries to show that certain historians are not objective. Whether they should or should not be objective is not something the author has an opinion about.
B
offers evidence that undermines rather than supports the conclusion it reaches
The fact there are examples of non-objective explanations doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion. Although these examples don’t establish the conclusion, that doesn’t mean they tend to show that the conclusion is false.
C
fails to recognize that many historians employ methodologies that are intended to uncover and compensate for prejudices
Whether many historians use methods that are “intended” to compensate for prejudices doesn’t affect the author’s reasoning. The author has found examples of non-objective explanations. The issue is whether these come from the historians who say they’re objective.
D
takes for granted that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective
The author assumes that some of the non-objective explanations come from the historians who say they’re objective. We know this is an assumption, because if it weren’t true, then the author’s examples wouldn’t show that the historians who say they’re objective are non-objective.
E
fails to recognize that not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false
Whether explantions that embody ideologies are false has no impact on the argument. Those explanations can still be non-objective, even if they’re not false.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply