#13 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

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

Answer choice (E):

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

[lathlee]

Hi. i am just making it sure cuz it was not crystal clear in the text, line 40's "the philosophers of science" are the same group as 12-13 "find allies in certain philosophers of science who argue that "

[Shannon Parker]

Hi. i am just making it sure cuz it was not crystal clear in the text, line 40's "the philosophers of science" are the same group as 12-13 "find allies in certain philosophers of science who argue that "

Yes you are correct that they are referring to the same groups in both places. This is evidenced by the phrase in line 40, "the philosophers of science mentioned above."

[vbkehs]

I don't quite understand question #13. Can you please clarify why D is correct and the others aren't (I chose A and E before D).

[KelseyWoods]

Hi vbkehs!

Answer choice (A) is too strong here. Lines 51-54 show that the author doesn't think that the opinions of the new historians of science lack any credibility ("Indeed, much of the new work in the history of science has been extremely revealing about the institutional interactions and rhetorical devices that help determine whose results achieve prominence.")

Answer choice (E) is too specific. The passage does not state that the views of the new historians of science will soon be refuted.

Answer choice (D) describes the author's assessment of the opinions of new historians of science well and it matches the overall structure and main point of the passage. The 1st paragraph introduces us to the opinions of the new historians of science; the 2nd paragraph tells us why their views are gross overstatements; and the 3rd paragraph tells us that their views lead to some valuable insights.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[annabelle.swift]

Answer choice (A) is too strong here. Lines 51-54 show that the author doesn't think that the opinions of the new historians of science lack any credibility ("Indeed, much of the new work in the history of science has been extremely revealing about the institutional interactions and rhetorical devices that help determine whose results achieve prominence.")

Just to double-check, is the "Indeed... achieve prominence" sentence the only part of the passage that shows that the author doesn't think the opinions of the new historians lack any credibility?

Thanks!

[annabelle.swift]

Also, are extreme answer choices like A likely to be wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

I see some additional evidence against answer A in the immediately preceding lines in the third paragraph, annabelle.swift, starting with "Nor would I deny." All of that adds up to the author softening their view of those historians who have otherwise gone too far with their position. They have something of value to contribute, even though they are completely wrong in some regards.

And yes, extreme answers are frequently wrong, as with any sort of Must Be True question! It takes a lot to prove a very strong statement, so be wary about those extreme answers and don't pick them absent very, very powerful evidence!

[mollylynch]

How does paragraph 2 tell us that they are gross overstatements?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mollylynch!

Taken in the context of the other paragraphs, the second paragraph does suggest that the author views the recent historians of science as making "gross overstatements."

For the author's view, note that the author relies on the first person in the last sentence of the second paragraph ("I do not believe..." (line 28)). The author notes that the recent historians of science suggest that accepted scientific views are not "objectively accurate reflections of a natural world" (line 3). In the second paragraph, the author then challenges this view, using the composition of water and genetics as two examples (lines 24-28).

The author does not deny that these recent historians of science might offer some valuable insights (third paragraph), but the author nevertheless concludes that any "serious-minded and informed person" would agree that the examples in the second paragraph provide "factual descriptions of the world" (lines 28-30). The author thinks that ideology and the social processes in which science is embedded are important, but that accepted scientific views nevertheless still include "objectively accurate reflections of a natural world." So viewing accepted scientific views as nothing more than ideology or power seems a gross overstatement.