DISCUSSION: Propaganda is mentioned in two places: lines 16-18 and 27-28.
(Note that you should be able to find these lines quickly. When I read these passages, I saw both authors mentioned propaganda, to make an argument. So I remembered where propaganda was mentioned.)
The first author mentions propaganda to describe what a historian must not do. The second author mentions propaganda as something historical scholarship is distinct from.
This means that both authors think historians could become propagandists. It’s what historians must try to avoid.
- No rival approaches to history are mentioned.
- The passages never mention scholarship in other fields.
- “Discredit” means to destroy the good reputation of something. Propaganda has never had a good reputation. More specifically, the passage never mention anyone discrediting propaganda.
- CORRECT. See the discussion above. Historians can become propagandists if they’re not careful.
- D is a better answer. The authors are not merely contrasting history from propaganda. They are arguing history should not be propaganda.
Also, this answer says “kinds” of writing, plural. Propaganda is only one kind of writing. The LSAT is maddeningly precise – that plural alone is enough to eliminate this answer.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions