Hi Rhea:
The stimulus has three premises: 1) that a theoretical framework provides certain benefits; 2) that historians think historical analysis should be done within a theoretical framework; 3) that a theoretical framework cannot capture the main trends of the past.
The stem then asks us to provide the conclusion of the argument.
The only thing we can conclude from putting the three premises together -- really 2 & 3, because premise 1 is kind of irrelevant -- is that doing historical analysis within a theoretical framework will not capture the main trends of the past. That would be my pre-phrase going in to the answer choices.
Answer choice B says
(B) theoretical frameworks are less useful in history than they are in any other discipline
And the problem here is that we are in a Must-be-true/ Main Point question, where we need to support our credited answer with 100% certainty, and from the stimulus
we don't know anything about how effective theoretical frameworks are for other disciplines. Sure, they might not be great for historical analysis, but maybe theoretical frameworks are even worse for sociology, or physics, or some other discipline. We just don't know, and so it can't be our Must-be-true/ Main Point answer.
Answer C says
(C) even the best historical analysis done within a theoretical framework fails to capture all of history’s main trends
This was our pre-phrase, and is directly supported by combining premise 2 and premise 3.
I hope that helps!
Best,
Dan
