Q4 - Historian: The central claim of

[willaminic]

Hey, can anyone explain to me why D is wrong while A is correct.
When i first read D, i feel it is too strong about "the impossible"..but then the argument stated it is "impossible to stand outside all of history" which basically is saying it is impossible to see the end of history theory is true....

am i missing something?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

When i first read D, i feel it is too strong about "the impossible"

Notice that you slide in two words here that change the meaning...

which basically is saying it is impossible to see

There is a difference between something "being impossible" and "being impossible to see." And so while answer choice (A) says that it "is impossible to see," answer choice (D) is saying that it "is simply impossible."

Let's look at some the incorrect answers:

(B) is unsupported. We know that the theory's adherents believe that history is at an ideological end - but whether that is too ideological is not discussed.
(C) is not necessarily true, because being at the end-of-history does not mean that there would be signs to the observer that we are at the end of history.
(D) is incorrect because the theory may indeed be true, even though it's impossible to know it.
(E) is too strong. There is no support for the claim that those idealogical developments are "essential."

Let me know if you still have further questions on this one!

[peg_city]

I didn't like A because we could know if the end of history theory is true. The end of history theory adherents believe that democratic ideals are at the end of the spectrum but what happens if something else comes along which is better than democracy?

Where did I go wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

All of what you said is true, but that would suggest that it is possible to know whether the end-of-history theory is false, but not whether its true.

Had the answer choice said "whether the end-of-history theory is false," your example could be used to eliminate the answer choice choice.

Hope that helps!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Got this question correct but found it unusually tricky for a question #4. Keep in mind that while this is an inference question it's a MSS inference question, so the correct answer could be true but need not be true.

(A) Bingo. The author says that it is not possible to observe whether or not the theory is in fact correct (by stepping outside of history), although it's important to note that in refuting the theory, the author is presuming that it necessary to step outside history in order to verify whether or not the theory is true, that said the goal here isn't to be critical of the stimulus.
(B) This isn't supported by the stimulus.
(C) Tempting but wrong. We're told that it is impossible for us to know whether the theory exists. How can we infer that if we were at the end we'd know? As matt rightly pointed out, if there are no signs that we were at the end of history we could conceivably be present in that particular juncture without knowing it.
(D) This is tempting but incorrect. It presumes that if we cannot confirm that the theory is true then it cannot be true. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Something could conceivably be true even if we do not know that it is true.
(E) Adherents of the end of history theory probably think so but we cannot say for certain that this is true given what we're told in the stimulus.

[hzj184]

I think it's an Unproven vs. Untrue question.

"It is impossible to stand outside all of history to judge whether history is really at an end" means that the evidence to support/reject the theory doesn't exist.

We cannot say one theory is not true just because evidence that supports the theory doesn't exist. Hence, D can be eliminated.