LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36038
Complete Passage Discussion

Passage A
The passage outlines the standards for objective historical scholarship, and argues that the focus on
historical facts is central to the ideal of objectivity.

Paragraph 1 Overview

The first paragraph introduces the ideal of objectivity and some of its presuppositions. Of these, the
author considers the distinction between history and fiction to be especially important.

Paragraph 2 Overview

In the second paragraph, the author makes a distinction between historical facts and interpretation.
To the objective historian, facts take precedence over interpretation, the value of which can only be
judged by how well it accounts for the facts. The author rejects the relativist view that events lack
fixed or absolute meanings just because they may have multiple interpretations.

Paragraph 3 Overview

In the final paragraph, the author describes some of the tenets central to the ideal of objectivity. In
particular, objective historians must separate themselves from any external loyalties, such as political
considerations, partisanship or bias, and instead adopt the role of a neutral judge. The judiciary
functions as a metaphor for the all-important qualities that objective historians should seek to
emulate.

Summary


As a whole, the passage is not overly complex. The author’s language is bold and persuasive; her
attitude—didactic more than introspective. She firmly believes that an ideal historian is someone
who places a premium on facts over interpretation, separates history from fiction, rejects external
loyalties, and avoids becoming a propagandist at all costs. A historian’s primary allegiance is to the
objective historical truth.

Passage B

The second passage focuses on the distinction between historical objectivity and neutrality. Authentic
objectivity requires making powerful arguments that take into account reasonable objections and
alternative constructions. Unlike neutrality, which repudiates position-taking altogether, the ideal
of objectivity is faithful to the complexity of historical interpretations and embraces the plurality of
human perspectives.

Paragraph 1 Overview

The first paragraph distinguishes historical scholarship from propaganda. This distinction requires
self-discipline, and helps historians reject tempting interpretations that contradict established
historical facts.

Paragraph 2 Overview

The second paragraph redefines the ideal of objectivity as compatible with strong political
commitments and inimical to neutrality. While detachment is still an indispensable means of
achieving deeper understanding, objective historians should take into account all plausible objections
to their arguments and appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints. This, according to the author, forms
the “powerful argument” in which the ideal of objectivity is most compellingly embodied.

Paragraph 3 Overview

The third paragraph draws a sharp line between the powerful arguments of objectivity and the neutral
stance of a television newscaster. The newscaster is a particularly valuable metaphor, as it helps
elucidate a distinction central to the argument in passage B.

Summary

Overall, the author differentiates between objectivity and neutrality by suggesting that the former
requires historian engagement with multiple perspectives, whereas the latter abjures position-taking
altogether. Due to the highly nuanced and abstract nature of this argument, passage B is slightly
more difficult than Passage A.

Passage Similarities:

Both passages endorse an objectivist approach to historical scholarship, and believe that propaganda
is antithetical to the central tenets of historical objectivity. There is also a considerable agreement on
the need to abandon biased interpretations contradicted by the facts.

Passage Differences:

While the two authors agree that the ideal of objectivity is central to historical scholarship, they
define this ideal in vastly different ways. To the author of passage A, objectivity entails staunch
adherence to historical facts, leaving little room for conflicting interpretations of such facts. Unlike
the second passage, passage A demands that objective historians purge themselves of external
loyalties and develop an allegiance to colleagues who share their point of view. Objectivity is
synonymous with neutrality, requiring evenhandedness and insulation from political considerations.
By contrast, passage B regards the ideal of historical objectivity as antithetical to neutrality. Instead
of presuming that historical events have fixed or absolute meanings, objective historians should
embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints and accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations.
Doing so would make their arguments more powerful, not less so. Lastly, the author of passage
B rejects the proposition that objectivity is incompatible with political commitment, and has a
decidedly negative view of a historian whose only intellectual allegiance is to “fellow habitués” (line
53).
User avatar
 mayank_vaishya
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Sep 14, 2021
|
#90512
Hi,

I tried doing the whole RC section of this Test Prep 63 under timed conditions and got stuck on this passage and then the whole experience of solving a timed RC section nosedived. The passage, in my opinion, is very dense and abstract. While reading the passage I tried to read for the structure rather than the details, and despite this I spent 3.5 minutes reading it without skimming or notating it.
Since most of the questions following this passage were specific and inference based as opposed to structural I couldn't get them right. Do you reckon I could maybe spend 1 more minute on the passage and get a better grasp of the details or notate them with 3-4 minutes left for the question set ?

Generally also , I am facing difficulties reading the passages within 3.5 minutes and retaining them. While not trying to learn all the details, I try to read for structure as quickly as I can imbibing as much as I can and then head to the questions and almost always still gasp for time. Taking natural pauses to consolidate to derive the gist of the passage seems like a luxury in terms of time. I believe that m problem lies with details and inference questions. I never have time to go back to the passage and look for the relevant details without running out of time. Also that I am panicking a bit given that I have only 3 weeks before showdown and hesitant to experiment

I apologize for my vagueness and repetitiveness

Can you recommend me something ?

Many thanks
Mayank
User avatar
 Beth Hayden
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: Sep 04, 2021
|
#90655
Hi Mayank,

The passage is certainly abstract, and a lot of students struggle with those because so much of the LSAT is about reading for detail. The problem is that with RC it's very common for the details to distract you from the most important parts of the passage (i.e., seeing the trees instead of the forest).

With any RC passage, the key is figuring out the main idea of what the author is talking about, otherwise it's hard to understand how the details fit into the bigger picture and structure of the passage. You can't really understand the structure of an argument without knowing exactly what the argument is---why is the author telling you all of this? What are they trying to convince you of?

Here there are two authors and they both have different perspectives on a similar issue, so before you can tackle the questions you have to consider how each author looks at this problem of objectivity in historical analysis. You don't need to come up with as thorough of a summary as Dave did on-the-fly! Both authors think historians should be objective---A thinks the best way to do that is to be totally neutral, facts are facts and they aren't open to interpretation; B says that you don't need to be neutral to be objective, it's actually better to consider competing interpretations. That does not capture everything in the passage, I clearly boiled down the arguments quite a bit and left out details. But having a basic summary like that in your head as you approach the questions is invaluable!

If you are running out of time, it's going to pay off more in the long run to make sure you fully digest the passage in your first read through, rather than trying to reserve time to re-read things later. The better you get at fully understanding these passages the first time, the less you'll find you have to go back and look something up for a question. For example, you don't have to go back to the passage to answer #23, you just have to know that both authors care about objectivity, and (C) is the only answer that addresses that. For most of the other detail-focused questions on this passage, I found that knowing the basic position of each author was enough to make a really good educated guess without having to re-read anything.

I hope that's helpful!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.