LSAT Explanation PT 37, S2, Q10: Mark: To convey an understanding of

LSAT Question Stem

Carla does which one of the following in disputing Mark's position? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this passage, we have an argument between Mark and Carla about the approach historians should take when trying to convey an understanding of past events. Mark believes that historians should try to capture the personal experience of those who lived through the events, while Carla argues that relying on subjective perspectives would lead to a biased version of history, and that historians should instead focus on general and objective characterizations of the past. To understand this argument better, let's label each part:

- Mark's premise: Historians should try to capture the personal experience of past events.

- Carla's counterargument: Relying on subjective perspectives would lead to a biased version of history.

- Carla's conclusion: Historians should focus on general and objective characterizations of the past.

The question type for this problem is a Method of Reasoning (MOR) question, which asks us to identify how Carla disputes Mark's position. Let's go through each answer choice and see which one best describes Carla's counterargument:

a) Carla does not contest Mark's understanding of historical events themselves. Instead, she challenges the method he proposes for conveying that understanding. This answer choice is incorrect.

b) Carla does not question Mark's presupposition that one person can understand another's feelings. Her argument is focused on the potential bias that could arise from selecting a particular perspective, not on the ability to understand that perspective. This answer choice is incorrect.

c) This answer choice accurately captures Carla's counterargument. She argues that the selection involved in carrying out Mark's proposal (i.e., choosing a specific perspective) would distort the result and lead to a biased version of history. This answer choice is correct.

d) Carla does not question whether Mark accurately describes a specific type of historical writing that he might deplore. Her argument is focused on the potential bias in his proposed method, not on his description of any particular type of writing. This answer choice is incorrect.

e) Carla's argument does not touch on Mark's professional self-interest at all. She is focused on the potential consequences of his proposed method, not on his motivations for making that recommendation. This answer choice is incorrect.

In conclusion, answer choice (c) is the correct answer, as it best describes how Carla disputes Mark's position by arguing that the selection involved in carrying out his proposal would distort the result and lead to a biased version of history.