Passage Summary: Historians say they are as objective as scientists, but the reviewer thinks they're full of it because some history books are clearly biased and incorrect.

Conclusion: The claims of objectivity made by many historians regarding their subject matter should be rejected.

Reasoning: There are documented cases where historical explanations were false and reflected the ideological prejudices of the authors.

Analysis: The reviewer is guilty of a classic overgeneralization. Just because some historians have failed to be objective doesn't mean that the entire profession's claim to objectivity is a sham. It’s like saying no one can ever be a good driver just because you saw a few people get into fender benders this morning. Look for an answer choice that identifies this move from 'some are biased' to 'none are objective.'