Perplexed

rocky · Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: Perplexed

Hi All,I had the following question on CR ..please post explaination ..OA will be posted after .

History textbooks frequently need to be revised. The reasons for this are clear: new discoveries of documents and remains, the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories, the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data, and the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts. Any of these considerations may require that the past be reinterpreted in a manner that is new and more illuminating.
Which one of the following can be inferred from the argument in the passage?
(A) The interpretation of historical events is affected by natural science.
(B) The past is constantly renewed because of illuminating reinterpretations.
(C) History books are outdated as soon as they are written.
(D) Natural scientists also function as historians.
(E) Historians’ mistaken inferences are caused by unnoticed relationships among data.

discreet · Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:31 am Post subject:

Nice question....Inference qns are usually a bit tough to crack.whts the source?

Is it A?I was confused between A & D.I will go with A.

My explanations :

B : appears to be a re-worded statement of the last line of the argument.Was also confused with this option.Since,Inference qns are based on what is not stated in the argument,I ruled out this option.
C: History textbooks are not outdated as soon as they are written.They may eventually be revised as and when new discoveries are made.I hope I am right in saying this.any other comments?
D : Since natural scientists keep discovering new things,they can also function as historians.This was my initial interpretation but later changed my mind to A as I thought that this is a bit generalized.I was very confused between A & D.Initially Chose D then changed my mind to A.
E : again, a re-worded statement

rocky · Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:44 am Post subject:

Hey discreet, you are right at answers but i still have one doubt that in question we have three reason joined by and as "new discoveries of documents and remains, the discovery of mistaken inferences in prior histories, the discovery of previously unnoticed relationships among data, and the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts" nut in inference we are only going for the last reason pertaining to natural sciences -----------------why is it so ? even if we got by elimination in this question why to point to A as it covers only last reason as given above.....

Can you please put more light ?

discreet · Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject:

Let us consider all options again :

B : This option slightly changes the meaning (though re-worded).So,cannot be the inference
C : refer previous explanation
D : refer previous explanation
E : This option combines two statements (the discovery of mistaken inferences + unnoticed relationships among data and also says that one is caused by other - this is clearly incorrect coz we cannot say that the second statement is caused by other!).So,this is clearly ruled out.Do you agree?

A is based on the statement that "the application of hitherto undiscovered principles of natural science all may indicate inadequacies in current history texts".
From this,it can be inferred that interpretation of Historical events is affected by Natural science (with discoveries of new principles that will have a direct implication on history).
Since all other options are not really inferences - A is the one that is really close.This is my opinion.

rocky · Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject:

Thanks discreet ..it was a good discussion .. Smile

and i think now that all the reasons " x,y,z and .hitherto application of natural sciences " tend to be a subtype of application of natural sciences only than can be the A answer.