Q10 - Prediction, the hallmark of

[ginsburgb]

I think the main conclusion is "this would be a mistake," which refers to the sentence before it (some social scientists want the power to predict accurately and assume they ought to preform the same reduction).

supporting premise: it would neglect data that are not easily mathematized and therby would only distort the social phenomena.

I'm having trouble seeing how answer A is another way of saying the conclusion. Can you please help me?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the post.

You're right! You're not crazy! (A) definitely is not a rephrasing of the conclusion, which you identified correctly. The correct answer here is (D): Phenomena in the social sciences should not be reduced to mathematical formulas. This is clearly a restatement of the idea that "it would be a mistake" for social scientists to reduce phenomena to mathematical expressions.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[ptraye]

can someone rephrase this argument in simple terms?

thanks.
p. 118

[sumukh09]

Prediction in the natural sciences is made possible by reduction of phenomena into mathematical expressions. Social scientists want to be able to predict too, so they should reduce phenomena into mathematical expressions as well. But they shouldn't perform this reduction. Why? Because data would be neglected, moreover data that is not easily mathematized, and this would distort social phenomena.

The bolded is the conclusion of the argument. The argument starts off by saying how it is helpful, in the natural sciences, to reduce phenomena into mathematical expressions because it gives them the ability to predict. Then the argument talks about how social scientists want to have this ability to predict too, and how they should also perform these reductions. However, this reduction should not be made in the social sciences because data would be neglected, which is the conclusion of the argument.

We have background info, background info, conclusion, and premise.

[ptraye]

thanks.

[slimz89]

I too struggled between A and D. I viewed this question almost like an inference question which led me to eliminate A. The passage never said that social science doesn't have as much predictive power as natural science, rather that one of the characteristic of natural science that enables it to accurately predict is the fact that it can reduce its phenomena into mathematical expressions. Does the fact that natural science can reduce its phenomena to mathematical expressions make it have more predictive power than social science? That's unknown.
Also I'd like to point out that since the sentence started with "but" you should generally stop and see what it's contrasting. Almost like an antecedent.