BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

It is naive

Expert replies
by YellowSapphire » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:06 am
Lenore: It is naive to think that historical explanations can be objective. In evaluating evidence, historians are always influenced by their national, political, and class loyalties.
Victor: Still, the very fact that cases of biased thinking have been detected and sources of bias identified shows that there are people who can maintain objectivity.

Victor's response does not succeed as a rebuttal of Lenore's argument because his response

(A) displays the same kind of biased thinking as that against which Lenore's argument it directed
(B) does not address the special case of historians who purposely distort evidence in order to promote their own political objectives
(C) fails to provide examples of cases in which biased thinking has been detected and the source of that bias identified
(D) does not consider sources of bias in historical explanation other than those that are due to national, political, and class loyalties
(E) overlooks the possibility that those who detect and identify bias are themselves biased in some way

OA: E
Last edited by YellowSapphire on Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Yellow Sapphire
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by HSPA » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:23 am
1)it is wrong to think X can have proofs. historians are biased by Y
2) Biased cases are found and historians are biased based on proof

Why is 2 wrong?
Opinion: proofs in [2] are wrong

IMO D... It gave me a tough 3.30min... I am skeptic about my answer
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by amitu » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:34 am
E
the argument is based on premise that people are biased .
Join the discussion

by champmag » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:39 am
+1 for E. According to Victor's argument the very fact that biased thinking is detected is the reason for objectivity to exist. What if the person who is detecting the biased thinking is himself biased. Then there would be no room for objectivity. So Op E captures this correctly.
Join the discussion

by force5 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:58 am
little difficult.

B says political objectives (out)
C- example not needed wont help ( out)
D- source of bias not needed (Out)

left with A and E.

liked A but then on a deeper thought removed A.
(A), perhaps not because, Lenore's comment was not against biased historians or any bias in particular. So, when Victor speaks about bias he forgets to understand that the people who have detected some historians to be biased, could have been biased as well. So, (E) fits in well here.
Join the discussion

by rahul_tgsp » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:54 am
i ll go with E
Join the discussion

by Sharma_Gaurav » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:48 am
I have serious doubts regarding the wordings of option E.

If this option said (E) overlooks the possibility that those who detect and identify bias CAN BE themselves biased in some way.

Then E would have been more clearer or serious contender. Well how can we definitely say for sure that ppl who are detecting are biased already????/

Experts please explain and throw some more night on this??
Join the discussion