Set 5: Inferences (Advanced)
Explanation
PASSAGE
Counterfactual history—asking 'what if' questions about alternatives to actual events—is controversial. Critics argue such speculation cannot be tested and distracts from understanding what actually happened. Defenders counter that considering alternatives clarifies why specific outcomes occurred; understanding causation requires imagining what was possible but did not happen.
What argument do defenders make for counterfactual history?
Detailed Explanation
This question asks you to draw a logical conclusion from the text. 'Clarifies why specific outcomes occurred' by 'imagining what was possible but did not happen' = causation requires considering alternatives. A valid inference must be supported by evidence in the passage, even if not stated directly. Look for clues in the text that strongly suggest the answer. Avoid conclusions that require assumptions beyond what's written. Valid inferences are strongly supported by multiple pieces of evidence in the text. Be cautious of choices that go too far beyond what the passage actually states. The best inference is the one most directly supported by textual evidence.
Key Evidence:
• "considering alternatives clarifies why specific outcomes occurred"
• "understanding causation requires imagining what was possible but did not happen"
Why others are wrong: A (Defenders argue for studying alternatives.), B (Critics note they 'cannot be tested.'), D (Defenders claim scholarly value.).