Humanities and Social Sciences: Reading Arguments in Context
The skill being tested
This section presents passages from philosophy, history, sociology, economics, and cultural criticism, then asks what the author claims, assumes, implies, or would reject. The core concepts are argument structure, premise and conclusion, assumption, inference, tone, bias, and historical or theoretical context.
Reading strategy
Identify the conclusion first, then the premises supporting it. Distinguish what the author asserts from what the author merely reports about others. Track concession words ("admittedly", "granted") and contrast words ("however", "yet") - these usually mark the author's real position. Ask what must be true for the argument to work; that unstated premise is a favourite question target.
Traps
- Scope inflation. An answer that is broader or stronger than the passage supports.
- True but irrelevant. Options that are factually correct yet do not answer the question asked.
- Attribution error. Confusing a view the author describes with the view the author holds.
- Extreme wording. Options using always, never, or proves often overreach; qualified options are likelier correct.
- Tone misread. Irony and understatement are easy to miss; notice exaggeration and rhetorical questions.
Worked example
A passage argues that museums should return looted artefacts because ownership acquired through coercion is illegitimate. Question: which assumption does the argument require? The key unstated premise is that current institutions inherit obligations from past coercion - without it, the argument fails. An option saying "museums preserve objects well" may be true but is irrelevant.
Rule of thumb
For every option, ask: Where in the passage is this licensed? If you cannot point to a phrase, reject it. Eliminate on relevance before weighing plausibility.