LSAT 6 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Leonore: It is naive to think that historical explanations…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Some people are objective.

REASONING: We have identified cases of bias and sources of biased thinking.

ANALYSIS: Lenore says that everyone will be biased, somehow. Lenore did not say it is impossible to identify those biases. That is why Victor’s response is inadequate.

A Chinese historian might recognize that an American historian ignores America’s destructive foreign wars. An American historian might recognize that a Chinese historian glosses over the millions who died in the Great Leap Forward. But both historians are still biased.

Victor might be right but he needs more info to prove it.

___________

1. Victor doesn’t seem influenced by national, political or class loyalties.
2. Victor wasn’t claiming all historians are unbiased. He only claimed that some were. He doesn’t have to address historians who lie.
3. It isn’t necessary that Victor identify his examples. On the LSAT we generally take people at their word. The main problem is that his evidence wouldn’t prove his point, even if he had examples.
4. Victor seems to be talking about all sources of biases. He doesn’t limit his argument to the sources Lenore identifies.
5. CORRECT. Yes. The fact that you identify a bias in someone else (or even in yourself) doesn’t mean you aren’t biased in some other way. We all have biases.

Recap: The question begins with “Leonore: It is naive to think that historical explanations”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.