#11 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[kcho10]

Hi,
I still don't really see how (B) is incorrect. Isn't the first sentence of the second sentence ("...it is deeply implausible") the author's opinion about the philosophers of science, and couldn't it be argued that the author is supporting that point with lines 28-29?

Thank you in advance

[Steve Stein]

Hi kcho ,

That's a great question. The author begins that passage with a discussion about recent historians of science who argue that accepted scientific views are based on the beliefs of influential scientists rather than on the objective validity of those views. The author states that these extreme historians might be aligned on some level with certain philosophers of science, but then closes the paragraph by saying that those philosophers would probably have nothing to do with those historians (still being a step away from the views of those extreme historians).

The excerpt quoted in the passage is part of an attack on those historians and their extreme view that scientific observations are not based on objective reality. This view, says the author, is implausible, and that any serious-minded person must admit, for example, that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

Tough question! Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

~Steve

[kcho10]

Hi kcho ,

That's a great question. The author begins that passage with a discussion about recent historians of science who argue that accepted scientific views are based on the beliefs of influential scientists rather than on the objective validity of those views. The author states that these extreme historians might be aligned on some level with certain philosophers of science, but then closes the paragraph by saying that those philosophers would probably have nothing to do with those historians (still being a step away from the views of those extreme historians).

The excerpt quoted in the passage is part of an attack on those historians and their extreme view that scientific observations are not based on objective reality. This view, says the author, is implausible, and that any serious-minded person must admit, for example, that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

Tough question! Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

~Steve

Hi Steve,
Thank you for your response! I'm not sure I completely understand your explanation...so are you basically saying that answer (B) is wrong because although it does reinforce the stated opinion, it is not the actual general function of the statement? So in the future, when approaching this question, is it better to find what this statement does in relation to the main point/main argument of the passage, rather than its immediate relation to the statement it directly responds to?


Also, what would you say is the main idea of this passage? Is there a specific line reference that states the main idea, or is it a combination of multiple statements?

Thank you in advance

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi,

I think you're getting hung up on the relationship of the two sentences. But that's not what the question asks. Notice, that the question asks specifically why the words "any serious-minded and informed person" were used.

At no point earlier in the passage did the author ever express an opinion on whether or not particular people were serious-minded and/or informed. So these word can't have been chosen for that purpose.

The reason they were chosen was because the author is saying anyone who disagrees with the rest of the sentence must not be serious-minded and informed. This is exactly what answer choice E says.

Do you see the difference? The reason why the statement as a whole is made and the reason why particular words in that statement are chosen are two different things.

I think the sentence on lines 20-24 is a pretty good summary of the main idea of the passage.

Hope that helps.

[sdb606]

I don't understand why E is correct. Is the author saying in the passage that all scientific theories are based in objective reality? The author only uses water and genes as examples of scientific assertions based on objective reality. Does the author leave open the possibility that some theories are not?

Suppose it is the case that some theories are not. What if the person described in E is arguing for a scientific assertion that is not based on objective reality. (This possibility is allowed because of the use of "certain" in the answer.) It could be that this person is correct, in which case the author could not use "any serious-minded and informed person" to discredit that person because not all theories are based on objective reality and so cannot be refuted using those words. It was my understanding that the author, in using water and genes as examples of obvious scientific views based on objective reality, was not claiming that all theories are based in objective reality.

If E had said, "to discredit someone who would argue that NO scientific assertions factually describe reality," then I would pick it.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi sdb,

I think you're misreading answer choice E here. It's a limited answer, and the word "certain" is doing the limiting. The word "certain" is not opening the field up to just any possible scientific assertion. Instead, it's meant to refer to the limited assertions, i.e. the "certain ones" the author discussed in the just prior sentence, about water and genetics. Could it have been a slightly clearer answer if it'd said, "certain specified assertions?" Yes. But be careful about an answer that has another very plausible reading like this answer. It has to stay in your contender answer choice list, particularly when all the other answers have readily identifiable deficiencies that make them wrong (as the wrong answers do here).

I hope this helps!