Historians create ideas we call “history,” which are derived from an order existing in the real world of historical fact. Since the patterns discovered in that world depend in part on the aims of the investigator, however, historical periods will tend to be defined in incompatible ways by historians with different interests. Thus, insofar as the aims of historians of music, painting, literature, and poetry are different, it cannot be assumed that
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
A. real-world facts about art will ever be accurately represented
B. the accounts of these historians will ever be anything but arbitrary
C. the periods of artistic style delineated by these historians will coincide
D. the historical patterns defined by these historians will differ appreciably
E. there are any facts from which patterns of artistic style may be derived
Solution
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Historians create ideas we call “history,” which are derived from an order existing in the real world of historical fact. | What it says: Historians make historical ideas based on real facts and patterns that actually exist What it does: Sets up the foundation – tells us how history gets created What it is: Author’s opening premise |
| Since the patterns discovered in that world depend in part on the aims of the investigator, however, historical periods will tend to be defined in incompatible ways by historians with different interests. | What it says: Different historians with different goals will see different patterns and create conflicting historical periods What it does: Introduces a key problem – shows how the foundation from the first statement leads to conflicts What it is: Author’s supporting premise Visualization: Historian A (focused on politics) sees Period X as 1800-1850, while Historian B (focused on economics) sees Period Y as 1820-1880 – they overlap but don’t match |
| Thus, insofar as the aims of historians of music, painting, literature, and poetry are different, it cannot be assumed that | What it says: Since music, art, literature, and poetry historians have different goals, we can’t assume something (conclusion missing) What it does: Applies the general principle to specific types of historians and sets up the final conclusion What it is: Author’s transition to conclusion |
Argument Flow:
The argument moves from a general principle about how history is created, to a problem with this process, to a specific application. We start with how historians create history from real facts, then learn that different goals lead to conflicting interpretations, and finally apply this to specific fields like music and art history.
Main Conclusion:
The conclusion is incomplete, but it’s building toward the idea that we cannot assume historians in different artistic fields (music, painting, literature, poetry) will create compatible historical periods since their aims differ.
Logical Structure:
This follows a logical chain: if different aims lead to incompatible historical periods (premise), and if music/art/literature historians have different aims (premise), then we cannot assume their historical periods will be compatible (implied conclusion).
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes – We need to find what conclusion naturally follows from the premises about historians having different aims and creating incompatible historical periods
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about how historians with different aims will define historical periods in incompatible ways, and applies this to historians of music, painting, literature, and poetry
Strategy
Since this is a ‘Logically Completes’ question, we need to find what conclusion flows directly from the premises. The argument establishes that different historian aims lead to incompatible period definitions, then applies this to arts historians. The completion should show what we cannot assume about these different arts historians given their different aims
Answer Choices Explained
A. real-world facts about art will ever be accurately represented
‘real-world facts about art will ever be accurately represented’ – This doesn’t follow from the argument. The passage actually establishes that historians DO derive their ideas from real facts in the world. The issue isn’t about accuracy of representation, but about how different aims lead to different period definitions. This choice shifts the focus away from the core point about incompatible periods.
B. the accounts of these historians will ever be anything but arbitrary
‘the accounts of these historians will ever be anything but arbitrary’ – This goes too far and contradicts the argument. The passage tells us that historians’ work is based on real-world facts and genuine patterns, just that different aims reveal different patterns. Calling the accounts ‘arbitrary’ suggests they’re random or baseless, which isn’t what the argument supports.
C. the periods of artistic style delineated by these historians will coincide
‘the periods of artistic style delineated by these historians will coincide’ – This is the perfect logical completion. Since different aims lead to incompatible historical periods (established premise), and since music, painting, literature, and poetry historians have different aims (stated premise), we cannot assume their periods will coincide or match up. This directly follows the argument’s logic.
D. the historical patterns defined by these historians will differ appreciably
‘the historical patterns defined by these historians will differ appreciably’ – This actually contradicts the structure of the argument. The sentence starts with ‘it cannot be assumed that,’ so we need something that we CAN’T assume. But this choice suggests we can’t assume they’ll differ – which would mean we should expect them to be similar. This goes against the entire argument’s direction.
E. there are any facts from which patterns of artistic style may be derived
‘there are any facts from which patterns of artistic style may be derived’ – This directly contradicts the opening premise, which establishes that historians do derive their ideas from real-world facts and patterns. The argument never questions whether facts exist, only how different aims interpret those facts differently.
