We need to understand what the author thinks historians should actually focus on, not what they currently do wrong. From passage: "It is precisely for matters of this kind that the historian is entitled to rely on what have been called the 'auxiliary sciences' of history... It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function." The author criticizes historians who just collect basic facts -> says that's like praising an architect for using good concrete -> it's necessary but not the main job -> the real work is interpretation and selection -> deciding which facts matter and why. From passage: "The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context." So the author believes historians should be selective interpreters, not fact-collectors -> they should focus on why events matter and what they mean in context.

🔴 Option 1 -> scope-error -> mentions auxiliary sciences, but author says these are just for basic facts, not the main focus of real historical work 🔴 Option 2 -> misses-the-point -> detailed timeline is just more fact-gathering, which author criticizes as not being the historian's essential function 🟢 Option 3 -> correct -> explores deeper causes and context, which aligns with author's view that historians should interpret and select meaningful aspects, not just collect basic facts 🔴 Option 4 -> directly-opposite -> deriving facts from documents is exactly what author calls "necessary but not essential" - this is the positivist approach he criticizes The author would focus on why the battle mattered historically and what forces shaped it, not just when and where it happened.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts