We need to find which option does NOT weaken the passage's main claim that "facts do not speak for themselves." The passage argues that historians are the ones who select, arrange, and give meaning to facts. Facts need human interpretation - they don't have meaning on their own. 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." From passage: "every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts." So the passage says -> facts need historians to interpret them -> historians choose which facts to use and how to present them -> this gives facts their meaning. The question asks for the option that does NOT weaken this claim. In other words, we need the option that supports or agrees with the passage.

🔴 Option 1 -> weakens passage -> says facts have truth independent of historians, but passage says historians give facts meaning 🟢 Option 2 -> supports passage -> says facts can be relative to different people, which matches the passage's idea that historians interpret facts differently 🔴 Option 3 -> weakens passage -> says facts are objective and universal, but passage says historians must select and interpret them 🔴 Option 4 -> weakens passage -> says order doesn't matter for meaning, but passage specifically mentions "selection and arrangement" as ways to influence opinion Option 2 is the only one that agrees with the passage's view that facts are not absolute and require human interpretation. All other options contradict the passage by suggesting facts have objective, independent meaning.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts