Thanks for posting,
steves!
This paired passage is tricky! There are a lot of very similar concepts being thrown around (objectivity, detachment, neutrality, non-partisanship), but Passage B makes some slick distinctions amongst them that we have to take careful note of.
To do this, we're going to stick to my RC mantra: line references, or it didn't happen!
First, let's tackle the correct answer,
(B): what does each author say about strong political comment? Author A is clear - objective historians "must never become an advocate", and "must purge themselves of external loyalties" in the "avoidance of partisanship" (paragraph 3). Author B, however, states clearly that "objectivity is perfectly compatible with strong political commitment" (lines 34-5). Very clear disagreement!
So what about
(A)? What does each author say about detachment? Author A's above quotes seem to suggest that 'detachment' is indeed a valuable tool in achieving objectivity. But Author B does not lump detachment in with political commitment. Instead, he says that "the objective thinker does not value detachment
as an end in itself but only
as an indispensable means of achieving deeper understanding.In other words, Author B DOES value detachment
in achieving an objective view, he just doesn't value detachment as an end result. So the two authors, somewhat surprisingly, would AGREE about
(A)!
Let's take a look at the remaining wrong answers:
(C) Neither author makes any claim about whether historians have become more or less objective.
(D) While Author A would disagree with this (line 18), Author B never mentions propaganda or gives any implied support for it.
(E) Author A mentions this directly (lines 11-13), Author B never mentions it.
Does this help clear things up a bit?