Q27

[tw4jp]

I didn't choose E because I thought impaired is a very strong word. However, I guess it's the only answer align with author opinion.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it makes sense to think about whether "impaired" is too strong.

Since there's no modifier attached to it (BADLY impaired, SEVERELY impaired), we're just talking about the absolute quality of being impaired.

What is the logical opposite of "impaired"?

The study of history is either "impaired" or "not impaired".
"Not impaired" sounds to me like, "functioning normally / healthily / perfectly".

Dictionary.com gives synonyms like "weakened, damaged, having a certain disability" for 'impaired'.

Does our author think that imposing universal patterns on the study of history weakens, damages, or somewhat disables the study of history?

Yes, she definitely thinks it weakens the study of history. In lines 42-47, she's saying "perhaps if we stop imposing universal patterns, we can relinquish some futile hope we have and get back to contemplation and serious thought."

====================

(A) Opposite. The author thinks we CAN achieve narrative satisfaction (line 54)
(B) Opposite. The author thinks we SHOULD appreciate contingency/novelty (line 45)
(C) Opposite. The author thinks that we are SEARCHING IN VAIN for universal laws. (line 43-44)
(D) Basically the opposite. The author did concede that Marx's and Freud's grand theories were reasonable explanations for everything that had occurred up to that point in time, but she definitely didn't say we SHOULD use that perspective. And she seems to be mainly arguing that the time of pursuing grand theories, such as Marx's and Freud's perspectives, has come and gone.

[JoyC484]

Yeah, it makes sense to think about whether "impaired" is too strong.

Since there's no modifier attached to it (BADLY impaired, SEVERELY impaired), we're just talking about the absolute quality of being impaired.

What is the logical opposite of "impaired"?

The study of history is either "impaired" or "not impaired".
"Not impaired" sounds to me like, "functioning normally / healthily / perfectly".

Dictionary.com gives synonyms like "weakened, damaged, having a certain disability" for 'impaired'.

Does our author think that imposing universal patterns on the study of history weakens, damages, or somewhat disables the study of history?

Yes, she definitely thinks it weakens the study of history. In lines 42-47, she's saying "perhaps if we stop imposing universal patterns, we can relinquish some futile hope we have and get back to contemplation and serious thought."

====================

(A) Opposite. The author thinks we CAN achieve narrative satisfaction (line 54)
(B) Opposite. The author thinks we SHOULD appreciate contingency/novelty (line 45)
(C) Opposite. The author thinks that we are SEARCHING IN VAIN for universal laws. (line 43-44)
(D) Basically the opposite. The author did concede that Marx's and Freud's grand theories were reasonable explanations for everything that had occurred up to that point in time, but she definitely didn't say we SHOULD use that perspective. And she seems to be mainly arguing that the time of pursuing grand theories, such as Marx's and Freud's perspectives, has come and gone.

I think author did say that they were plausible in interpret phenomena precede them in line 25-30. So I cannot see why D is wrong, is the problem of "in" not "precede"?

[LolaC289]

(D) Basically the opposite. The author did concede that Marx's and Freud's grand theories were reasonable explanations for everything that had occurred up to that point in time, but she definitely didn't say we SHOULD use that perspective. And she seems to be mainly arguing that the time of pursuing grand theories, such as Marx's and Freud's perspectives, has come and gone.

I was also stuck in between (D) & (E), but I went with (D). My previous understanding was, In line 24-30, the author said that the works of Marx and Freud "....have been revealed as products of their era", so (D) was right in suggesting these perspectives, though not necessarily correct, could also help in studying the history of 19th and 20th century.

But I think ohthatpatrick's understanding is much closer to what it really means. (D) is more like stating the methodological value of M&F 's theories, suggesting their way of seeing history ("...illustrate the historical perspective...that should be used") should be used followed in historical studies. (D) does not mean taking advantage of their contents to reveal certain aspects of their centuries, but to USE THEIR METHOD in historical study, which is basically saying history develops according to certain universal and necessary laws (l.15). And our author is obviously against that thinking.

The "impair" seems a little bit too strong and I was not sure the "universal PATTERN" is the right word, but still, best one remain. Again, it is important to read closely and discern what one answer choice is really saying (not just have a superficial understanding on the words).