Passage Summary: Mark thinks history is best understood by feeling what people felt back then. Carla disagrees, arguing that picking one person's view over another is arbitrary and biased.

Conclusion: Historians should rely on objective and general descriptions of the past rather than attempting to capture individual experiences.

Reasoning: Focusing on specific experiences is inherently biased because there is no objective way to decide which person's perspective is the most valid.

Analysis: Carla challenges Mark's position by highlighting a practical problem with his methodology. She uses rhetorical questions to demonstrate that his approach lacks a clear standard for choosing whose experience matters most. By pointing out that his method leads to 'biased history,' she suggests that his goal is actually self-defeating. It's a classic move: showing that a well-intentioned plan might actually create the very problem it hopes to avoid.