Q12 - Conservative: Socialists begin their

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You're right. This is an awkward one! Let's begin with a deconstruction of the two arguments.

Conservative
Conclusion: In day to day progress of history, there are never such discernible trends (trends that lead inevitably to socialist future).

Premises:
1. Socialists use analysis history to derive inevitable trends
2. history occurs through accident, contingency, and struggle
3. so, inevitability only appears in retrospect

Socialist
Conclusion: Historical analysis is NOT important to socialists because of inevitability.
(somewhat tricky conclusion to identify, as it must be inferred from the construction of the first sentence -- "if THAT were true, blablabla..." essentially means "THAT is NOT true.")

Premises:
1. If they believed in inevitability, they would not work to transform.
2. in order to transform, they must understand
3. in order to understand, they must analyze history.

Tricky question. Essentially, it says "IF the conservative believes this, then the socialist and conservative disagree about history."

(A) what someone may or may not have predicted has nothing to do with either side's view of history
(B) this is at odds with what the conservative believes (ie that there is NOT any inevitability)
(C) deterioration or improvement of social conditions in the past has nothing to do with either side's view of history
(D) this does not conflict with the Socialist's position
(E) correct. If the Conservative believes that it is impossible for ppl's efforts to achieve changes in social conditions, this would put the Conservative at odds with the Socialist, who believes institutions can be transformed through hard work.

[tzyc]

Hello,

I'm a little confused...isn't (B) just repeat what conservative says? (Or say a similar thing...)

[cvfh17]

can you explain what is the point of view of each debater ? thanks
I'm a little lost with the argument.

[agersh144]

I get why E is correct but i'm still not sold on why B is wrong. If all historical events are contingent and could have occured otherwise than they actually did it would be impossible to say definitively that outcomes in history were inevitable which is precisely what socialist try to argue for through their analysis of history.

Why is this wrong?

[zen]

I get why E is correct but i'm still not sold on why B is wrong. If all historical events are contingent and could have occured otherwise than they actually did it would be impossible to say definitively that outcomes in history were inevitable which is precisely what socialist try to argue for through their analysis of history.

Why is this wrong?

The socialist is NOT saying that outcomes in history were inevitable. He argues against the inevitability of history. He argues against the conservative's assertion that socialist's DO believe in the inevitability of history-- he does this by providing evidence. The evidence is that they work hard to transform institutions of capitalist society; the socialist says that if they did believe in the inevitability of history, they would not work so hard to transform institutions, but they do, therefore, they don't believe in the inevitability of history.

[BangyuW932]

The difference between choice B and D is that B focuses on the inevitability of history, while D focuses on social changes.