Q12 - No matter how conscientious

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Weaken (it looks like Flaw, but all five answers are prefaced by "fails to consider the possibility", which we judge by asking "would it weaken?")

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Historians should try to interpret what eyewitnesses thought about events, not interpret the events themselves.
Evidence: Historians always have biases that affect their work.

Any prephrase?
Okay, well … why should we trust the eyewitnesses? Maybe they ALSO always have biases that affect their interpretations. Also, there is a bridge idea missing that would sound something like "if bias affects your work, then you should not be interpreting historical events". But the more flagrant objection would be the first one ... choosing between two potentially flawed sources of interpretation, the author needs to give us a strong reason to favor one over the other.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) This seems like a maybe. It interrupts the core a bit. The core: "Since they have biases, they should interpret people, not events." (A) is saying, "You can have biases but often agree on some events". Ultimately, that's too puny of a weaken idea to beat (E).

B) Out of scope giveaway: OTHER than history.

C) If we've identified how bias affects historians work, does that allow us to counterargue that historians SHOULD interpret events, not eyewitness accounts? Not quite. Identifying how bias affects their work doesn't give us what we would really need to hear: "Now that they've identified how their bias affects their work, they have been able to successfully eliminate that bias."

D) Translate "not all" into "some". "Some historians are NOT aware of the effect their bias has on their work". That's more like a strengthen idea.

E) This seems like a strong maybe (and ends up being correct). This more directly attacks the core than (A) did. "Since historians ALWAYS have biases that affect their work, they should intepret eyewitness accounts, not events." This answer is saying, "I though bias ALWAYS affects their work. Won't that be true as well when they start interpreting eyewitness accounts?"

Takeaway/Pattern: Tough dig for me! I had a different reaction to the stimulus. Other people probably had (E) clearly in mind. It goes to show that we have to stay flexible as we analyze answers.

"Fails to consider" = "Does this weaken?"

(E) weakens more strongly than (A) because (A) is only saying "for SOME events, the bias isn't preventing agreement about MANY aspects". That's not a powerful objection. (E), meanwhile, is saying that this "solution" is a total non-solution. That's a powerful objection.

#officialexplanation

[ngogirl]

Why is it E? I picked A. Is A wrong because of the word "many"? I thought this one was correct because if they agree about certain aspects, then they do not bring their individual biases into the work.

[timmydoeslsat]

The question stem is asking for us to identify the flaw in this argument.

The question stem wants us to find something that the argument fails to consider.

Does the arguer fail to consider answer choice A? Yes, but it is not a flaw in this argument.

Does the arguer fail to consider that Peyton Manning may win a super bowl in Denver? Yes, but it is not a flaw.

We are told that every historian will have bias that will affect their work. The arguer then decides to give a prescription for this problem. The historians should interpret what people thought rather than do your own interpreting.

This argument fails to consider that the historians' bias will affect their work of attempting to interpret what others say!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation Timmy! You've nailed it. And I like the word you use, "solution." That's what the author is offering, but as answer choice (E) points out, the solution does nothing to address the problem of bias.

Let's walk through the incorrect answers on this one:

(A) is irrelevant. The author does not say that biased historians can't ever find the truth. The author just says they're biased, but doesn't assume anything about the historians not being able to come to agreement.
(B) is out of scope. The argument is not about other scholars.
(C) is out of scope. We care whether there is, or is not bias. Not how such bias would manifest itself.
(D) is out of scope. We care whether there is, or is not bias. Not how such baias would manifest itself.

Hope that helps!