📘 What’s Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?
📝 Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
✅ Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
🔍 In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
📚 Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.
RC Passage
Direction for the questions 9 to 12: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
The Positivists, anxious to stake out their claim for history as a science, contributed the weight of their influence to the cult of facts. First ascertain the facts, said the positivists, then draw your conclusions from them. . . . This is what may [be] called the common-sense view of history. History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions, and so on . . . [Sir George Clark] contrasted the "hard core of facts" in history with the surrounding pulp of disputable interpretation forgetting perhaps that the pulpy part of the fruit is more rewarding than the hard core. . . . It recalls the favourite dictum of the great liberal journalist C. P. Scott: "Facts are sacred, opinion is free."...
What is a historical fact? . . . According to the common-sense view, there are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history—the fact, for example, that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. But this view calls for two observations. In the first place, it is not with facts like these that the historian is primarily concerned. It is no doubt important to know that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not in 1065 or 1067, and that it was fought at Hastings and not at Eastbourne or Brighton.
The historian must not get these things wrong. But [to] praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber or properly mixed concrete in his building. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function. 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—archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, chronology, and so forth. . . .
The second observation is that the necessity to establish these basic facts rests not on any quality in the facts themselves, but on an apriori decision of the historian. In spite of C. P. Scott's motto, every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. 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. . . .
The only reason why we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event. . . . Professor Talcott Parsons once called [science] "a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality." It might perhaps have been put more simply. But history is, among other things, that. The historian is necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate.
RC Line-wise Explanation
Paragraph 1
Original: The Positivists, anxious to stake out their claim for history as a science, contributed the weight of their influence to the cult of facts.
Explanation: Positivists wanted history to be viewed like a scientific discipline, so they emphasized the importance of factual evidence.
Original: First ascertain the facts, said the positivists, then draw your conclusions from them.
Explanation: They believed historians should gather facts first and then derive conclusions, not the other way around.
Original: This is what may [be] called the common-sense view of history.
Explanation: This approach is often seen as the logical or straightforward way of understanding history.
Original: History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts.
Explanation: According to this view, history is essentially a collection of confirmed facts.
Original: The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions, and so on . . .
Explanation: Historians can find these facts in sources like written records, carvings, or official data.
Original: [Sir George Clark] contrasted the 'hard core of facts' in history with the surrounding pulp of disputable interpretation forgetting perhaps that the pulpy part of the fruit is more rewarding than the hard core.
Explanation: Sir George Clark differentiated between undeniable facts and subjective interpretations, but the author humorously suggests that interpretations may be more intellectually valuable than raw facts.
Original: It recalls the favourite dictum of the great liberal journalist C. P. Scott: 'Facts are sacred, opinion is free.'
Explanation: This statement echoes C.P. Scott’s famous quote emphasizing the inviolability of facts while allowing space for opinions.
Paragraph 2
Original: What is a historical fact? . . . According to the common-sense view, there are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history—the fact, for example, that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066.
Explanation: The “common-sense” idea holds that some historical facts are universally accepted and provide the foundation of historical knowledge.
Original: But this view calls for two observations.
Explanation: The author introduces two critical points to challenge or qualify this view.
Original: In the first place, it is not with facts like these that the historian is primarily concerned.
Explanation: Historians are not mainly focused on such straightforward data.
Original: It is no doubt important to know that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not in 1065 or 1067, and that it was fought at Hastings and not at Eastbourne or Brighton.
Explanation: Accuracy in these basic details matters but isn’t the core of a historian’s work.
Original: The historian must not get these things wrong.
Explanation: Historians are expected to be accurate in these basic facts.
Original: But [to] praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber or properly mixed concrete in his building.
Explanation: The author argues that factual accuracy is a basic requirement—not a notable achievement—much like quality materials are essential but not remarkable in architecture.
Original: It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function.
Explanation: Being factually accurate is essential, but it's not the primary role of a historian.
Original: 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—archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, chronology, and so forth.
Explanation: Other disciplines like archaeology and chronology help supply these basic facts, freeing historians to focus on interpretation.
Paragraph 3
Original: The second observation is that the necessity to establish these basic facts rests not on any quality in the facts themselves, but on an apriori decision of the historian.
Explanation: The choice to establish certain facts as “basic” is not due to their inherent value, but rather a decision made by the historian beforehand.
Original: In spite of C. P. Scott's motto, every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts.
Explanation: Even journalists recognize that how you choose and present facts can shape people’s opinions.
Original: It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue.
Explanation: The idea that facts alone convey meaning is rejected as false.
Original: 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.
Explanation: Historians control the narrative by choosing which facts to present and how to present them.
Paragraph 4
Original: The only reason why we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event.
Explanation: We care about this fact because historians have identified it as significant.
Original: Professor Talcott Parsons once called [science] 'a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality.' It might perhaps have been put more simply.
Explanation: Sociologist Talcott Parsons defined science as a way of selectively understanding reality, though the author suggests it could have been phrased in simpler terms.
Original: But history is, among other things, that.
Explanation: Despite the jargon, history too involves selectivity in how it approaches facts.
Original: The historian is necessarily selective.
Explanation: Historians must choose which facts to include and emphasize.
Original: The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate.
Explanation: Believing that historical facts exist independently of how historians interpret them is a dangerous and false notion, though it remains widespread.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
The Positivists emphasized gathering factual data before interpretation, promoting a view that history should be fact-based and objective. However, interpretations often provide richer insights than raw facts, which challenges this rigid factualism.
Paragraph 2 Summary
While historical accuracy is essential, it’s only a foundation for deeper work. Historians rely on allied disciplines for basic facts, but their real role lies in interpreting and analyzing these facts, not merely collecting them.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Facts gain meaning only when selected and arranged by historians. The act of choosing and presenting facts shapes the narrative, contradicting the idea that facts alone are neutral or self-explanatory.
Paragraph 4 Summary
Historical significance depends on historians’ judgments. History, like science, involves selective interpretation, and the idea of facts existing independently of interpretation is an enduring yet flawed belief.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Positivists viewed history as a collection of facts; interpretation is more meaningful. |
| Paragraph 2 | Factual accuracy is necessary but not the main job of historians. |
| Paragraph 3 | Historians give meaning to facts through selective presentation. |
| Paragraph 4 | History is interpretive and selective; facts alone don't define historical truth. |
RC Questions
Ques 9. If the author of the passage were to write a book on the Battle of Hastings along the lines of his/her own reasoning, the focus of the historical account would be on:
Ques 10. According to this passage, which one of the following statements best describes the significance of archaeology for historians?
Ques 11. All of the following, if true, can weaken the passage’s claim that facts do not speak for themselves, EXCEPT:
Ques 12. All of the following describe the “common-sense view” of history, EXCEPT:
