December 2004 LSAT
Section 2
Question 19
Emil-Kunkin on December 25 at 08:31PM
The author declares that all historians must not be objective because there are some examples of history that is not objective. However, this is flawed because the mere existence of a counterexample does not prove that there are no positive examples. In this case, it is possible that the historians who are not objective do not claim to be objective. This shows that these historians do not even relate to the historians who do claim to be objective whose claims the author dismisses here.