Q11

[ldanny24]

Hi,

I chose E for this one. It was really difficult to find support for answer C since lines 46-47 states that humanities already profit from attempts at controlled evaluation. It seemed blatantly wrong in my opinion that the author would want them to modify something they already do to something they already do. Is it because maybe the examination of human values should be applied to controlled evaluation? I had a tough time locating any evidence for this. Either way, any help would be much appreciated.

[adarsh.murthy]

same problem here. fully agree with what you think. I dint see much support for C. However, I chose D and not E. No option made any sense and in fact I thought C is a "trap" answer. If I try to rationalize option C, the only thing I can think of is that what the author is trying to say in lines 46-47 is: The humanists can indeed benefit from controlled evaluation and FEW humanists have infact used it as well;But controlled evaluation has not achieved a full fledged acceptance in the humanists community. So, this general statement in option C might be directed to a vast majority of Humanists who have not accepted controlled evaluation. What do you think?

[noah]

Great discussion.

Here's how I see this question:

After reading the question stem, I broadly pre-phrased the answer to be "the humanists should accept some aspects of the scientific approach."

Looking at the answers:

(A) doesn't get us to humanists accepting parts of the scientific approach. It simply has humanists switch their stated view of scientists for one that is only slightly different. This is unsupported and perhaps contradicted.


(B) is tempting if you got excited that you had read something in this passage about spirituality. However, this answer is contradicted - the humanists (at least some of them) already think there's spiritual stuff that science doesn't account for. Where's the suggested change of view that the author would make?

(C) is correct and is supported by lines 46-47. The key is to keep in mind that that whole section of the paragraph is the correction that the author is suggesting. When stating that science doesn't depend on measurable data, the author is basically saying "hey, the truth is that scientists aren't all about the hard facts, and you humanists and scientists should start recognizing that." Similarly, when the author states that humanists do profit from "attempts at controlled evaluation," the point is that the humanists and scientists should start recognizing that. Just because something is already true doesn't mean it's part of a viewpoint.

(D) is similar to (B) - the passage does mention art, however it doesn't mention how important art is in people's lives. Out of scope.

(E) is tricky. The passage notes that scientists might view humanists as ignoring issues related to mankind's survival, however the author isn't arguing that humanists should start to show that they're interested in that. Neither side is encouraged to change how they approach the world but instead how they view each other's approach.

Does that clear it up?