Serra on March 2 at 09:38PM
The authors conclusion is “But we clearly cannot accept these proclamations of objectivity…” with the reasoning being that ”it is easy to find instances of false historical explanations embodying the ideological and other prejudices of their authors.”
‘Unprejudiced’ and ‘objective’ can be used synonymously, so it follows that the easily found examples illustrating “historical explanations embodying the … prejudices of their authors” are not objective. Why would we accept someones claimed objectivity when there exists a clear example of the inverse?
I can see that the argument is flawed in the sense that it makes judgement that no proclamations of objectivity made by historians can be accepted, when all we know is that “Many historians” make this claim. So I chose (E) fails to recognize that not all historical explanations embodying ideologies are false.
How is the correct answer choice (D) takes for granted that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective?
Takes it for for granted? How so? The author doesn’t infer that some historical work that embodies prejudices is written by historians who purport to be objective, he explicitly states that they do this and that we shouldn’t accept these claims because there are easily located examples showing otherwise.
I’ve read the prior discussion boards and even though Naz gives an awesome explanation, I’m still not accepting that the answer is (D). What am I missing?
Jacob on March 3 at 12:57AM
Serra on March 3 at 03:31AM
Ravi on March 9 at 07:32PM