Q15 - As part of a new trend

[kim]

15. (D)
Question Type: Inference

A new history writing trend emphasizes details and overlooks overarching trends. As a result, parallels between historical and current trends may be missed and we learn less from history. Answer (D) clearly describes this relationship.

(A) suffers from detail creep. It says that studying details leads to lessen ability to learn from history. However, the author discusses writing about history, not studying it.
(B) has problems of degree. Can trends only be discerned when details are not emphasized? The author says trends are "often overlooked" which is far less extreme.
(C) also has problems of degree. Those who attend to trends are best able to learn from history? There may be other options besides attending to trends or details that could be an even better way to learn from history.
(E) is out of scope. The author does not make a recommendation about the relative emphasis that should be given to trends vs. details.


#officialexplanation

[luoxiao2003]

I know this question might be strange: but why the "writing of history" is the same as "interpretations of history"? Forgive my naiveness.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I know it's frustrating, but those two terms are similar enough to each other not to cause problems. There was the old emphasis when interpreting history, and now there is a new emphasis.

The stimulus does say "writing of history," but to write it they would need to interpret it. So, "interpretation of history," as in answer choice (D) is close enough to reflect the content of the stimulus.

Be careful on word shifts like this. You're reading with the proper mindset, it's just not always the case that the test-writer exploits subtle differences in language.

[manoridesilva]

I know this question might be strange: but why the "writing of history" is the same as "interpretations of history"? Forgive my naiveness.

I wondered if you were confused between why A was wrong ('studying' versus 'writing') yet D was acceptable ('interpretation' versus 'writing')?

I hope this helps: A is also wrong (in my opinion) because it suggests that focusing on details actively lessens the ability to learn from history. I think this goes beyond what is said in the stimulus. The stimulus suggests that it is the lack of focus on trends that is causing the problem, not that looking at details is per se a problem. My reading of the stimulus was that it would be okay to focus on both detail and trends as long as the trends are not neglected. Once the trends become neglected, ie replaced by details, that is when there is a problem and our ability to learn from history is lessened. This was the reason I eliminated A.

[jdrdek]

I chose answer A. I can see why D was the correct answer, but I was wondering... If the question instead asked "Which of the following is an assumption that would strengthen the above argument?" Do you think A would work then? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question jdrdek!

Notice the language in the question stem. This is an Inference question, asking us to find what is "Most Strongly Supported" by the information.

If this were a Strengthen question, we'd need to ask ourselves what is the Argument Core? Are they trying to prove that our ability to learn from history has been lessened? One might make the case that the words "in consequence" introduce a claim that is supposed to follow from another claim. I'm not sure that's the way it's intended here, which I think is meant more to imply an issue of causation. Though I have seen the such language introduce conclusions on other questions.

Even if we were to give them the idea that the ominous parallels that may exist between historical trends and current trends are also overlooked is a conclusion, I would not be able to say that answer choice (A) supports that claim. We know that overlooking such parallels lessens our ability to learn from history, but we don't know that anything that lessons our ability to learn from history leads us to overlook such parallels.

So in short, the answer is no, because I don't see an argument here and even if we construed it such that there was an argument, the claim that one might construe to be the conclusion would not be supported.

Hope that helps!

[woodyguthrie]

Another reason why A) is wrong: It suggests that studying the details, etc., lessens our ability to learn from history absolutely. The stimulus never argues this. Perhaps we studied details in the past, but just not as much.

[amil91]

I know this question might be strange: but why the "writing of history" is the same as "interpretations of history"? Forgive my naiveness.

I wondered if you were confused between why A was wrong ('studying' versus 'writing') yet D was acceptable ('interpretation' versus 'writing')?

I hope this helps: A is also wrong (in my opinion) because it suggests that focusing on details actively lessens the ability to learn from history. I think this goes beyond what is said in the stimulus. The stimulus suggests that it is the lack of focus on trends that is causing the problem, not that looking at details is per se a problem. My reading of the stimulus was that it would be okay to focus on both detail and trends as long as the trends are not neglected. Once the trends become neglected, ie replaced by details, that is when there is a problem and our ability to learn from history is lessened. This was the reason I eliminated A.

Thank you this post really helped clarify this question for me!

To add some of my own thoughts to this, A also does not relate to what the stim actually says. A ignores that there is a switch. Like said above, the details could be studied more along with continuing to look at the overarching trends in comparison to current trends and not have one's ability to learn from history diminish. It's not the details that has lessened our ability, it is the switch, and even more specifically the lack of looking at the overarching trends and comparing it to current trends that lessens our ability to learn from history.

[jm.kahn]

I know this question might be strange: but why the "writing of history" is the same as "interpretations of history"? Forgive my naiveness.

I wondered if you were confused between why A was wrong ('studying' versus 'writing') yet D was acceptable ('interpretation' versus 'writing')?

Can any expert please answer the issue raised above?

I eliminated D due to the word 'interpretation'.

[jonathangroffman]

I know this question might be strange: but why the "writing of history" is the same as "interpretations of history"? Forgive my naiveness.

I wondered if you were confused between why A was wrong ('studying' versus 'writing') yet D was acceptable ('interpretation' versus 'writing')?

Can any expert please answer the issue raised above?

I eliminated D due to the word 'interpretation'.

I'm definitely no expert but my understanding of why A is wrong is that it's not the studying of the details of historical events and motivations that lessens our ability to learn, it's the lack of studying the trends and movements that lessens our ability to learn. So A is wrong because it places the "blame" on the wrong element. I also got it wrong because I assumed the shift from writing to interpretations was a trap, but c'est la vie on the LSAT.

[mswang7]

New trend - emphasis on detail replace previous emphasis on overarching (now often overlooked).
As a result, parallels overlooked which lessens ability to learn from history

A. This is only half of what the argument is saying. It says studying the details while also focusing less on the overaching lessens our ability.
B. This is somewhat a reversal of what we the argument says. It says in this instance where we are focusing more on the details, we happen to also be focusing less on the trends but this doesn't mean we have to not emphasize detail to discern trends.
C. Best is too strong. We only know it would be better to learn from history. by focuing on both (details & trends) rather than than details over trends.
D. Hmm this works if you assume "change in emphasis" in the shift to details over trends
E. This is very close. The argument does not say "should" but rather this way we will be able to learn from history better.