Passage Summary: Since historians can't be perfectly neutral when they write about history, the author thinks they should just stick to describing what people at the time were thinking.

Conclusion: Historians should stop trying to explain what happened and focus instead on explaining the perspectives of the people involved.

Reasoning: It is impossible for historians to be completely objective because they always bring their own personal biases to their work.

Analysis: The author assumes that while historians are biased when interpreting events, they somehow won't be biased when interpreting thoughts. This is a major logical gap—if a historian's bias affects their view of a battle, it will almost certainly affect their view of a general's diary or a participant's motivations. Look for an answer that points out that the 'new' task is just as susceptible to bias as the 'old' task. The author is trying to escape bias by moving to a different subject, but the bias belongs to the historian, not the topic.