Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began...

Dear Kritesh,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's Question #1 with answer (A) & (C):
The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) qualify an established scholarly viewpoint regarding a certain issue
(C) delineate the historical events that led to a change in scholarly opinion

What, in the passage, is the "scholarly viewpoint" or "scholarly opinion"? This is the view stated at the beginning:
Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
That is the "scholarly viewpoint". The author does not entirely agree with this--in other word, he "qualifies" it. In effect, he says, "It's true in this respect, but not in that respect."

Much of the argument does "delineate the historical events," but the author is not doing this to to demonstrate what lead to a change in that view. Quite the opposite, that scholarly view is already well-established and presented as a fait accompli at the beginning. The list of historical event is part of this authors attempt, not refute the scholarly view, but to "qualify" it.

Choice (A) involves a very tricky secondary meaning of the verb "to qualify." In this sense, it means "to limit or modify the truth, power, or meaning of"

Suppose someone says, "Candidate J is the best candidate ever! He will save the world!" That's whole-hearted support. This first speaker is 100% behind candidate J.
Suppose someone else say, "Candidate J is overall a good candidate. He is strong on issues A, B, and C, but weaker on issues X, Y, and Z." This is qualified support. This second speaker is still behind Candidate J, but less than 100%.

Suppose someone make an argument: "X always leads to Y." This first speaker presents the argument as 100% true.
If someone else shows the argument is 100% false, he has refuted the argument. That's hard to do.
If yet someone else demonstrates that the argument is usually true, say 85% of the time, but that sometimes it's not true under certain conditions, then this person has qualified the argument.

To refute an argument is extreme: that is to go from white to black.
To qualify an argument is to introduce nuance--to offset the white with shades of gray.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Dear okay,

I'm happy to respond.

Choice (A) is a brilliant trap answer and choice (D) is correct.

The wording of (A) is tricky. If (A) had been, "The use of experiments is crucial in modern science as we now understand it," then that would be slam-dunk correct, although a little outside of the content of the passage. The passage is about when the worldview known as modern science can into being. The author begins by saying, "Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." In the very next sentence, though, we get "however," a big logical shift. The author things modern scientific thought began earlier, and he cites Jean Buridan (1295-1363) as an example of someone who understood an important part of modern scientific thought. The author make clear that the emphasis on experiments came a few centuries later, so Buridan was an example of someone who was able, at least to some extent, to "engage in what can properly be described as modem science" without the experimental perspective. Thus, the author actually would disagree with (A)--it contradicts the main argument he makes in the passage!

The author says that the origins of science can be traced back to the 14th century, and again, he cites Jean Buridan as someone who "argued that science is predicated on the assumption of the 'common course of nature.'” The author goes on: "This profound assumption represented a major shift in scholarly focus from the theological investigation of the uncommon or miraculous to the attempted explanation of the regular structure and operation of the world in purely rational and secular terms." Thus, according to the author, the origin of science began when people started talking about looking at nature differently than anyone had before. In other words,
"The origins of modern science can be traced back to the articulation of a particular approach to the study of nature."

Thus, (A) is a tempting trap, but (D) is the best answer.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Major shift from the previous theological position, not from the "prevailing scholarly opinion".

But let me analyze it a bit further:

"Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries."

"Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements."

See the shift, in the first paragraph we talk about when the scientific revolution BEGAN, not HOW IT WAS IDENTIFIED.
The author is not contradicting the "Prevailing scholarly opinion", simply adding something he/she, for some reason, wants to say about how it.

"Modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century. ...".

He is not in any way contradicting that modern science begun in the 16-17th century, is simply saying "look remember how you got there".

The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments, and the scientific revolution of the sixteenth century began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries.

You can see how throughout the argument he's not saying that there had been any kind of change in the opinion of scholars, and not even that there should be. The author is simply stating that we shouldn't forget how the scientists from the 16th and 17th century were able to start experimenting, leading the way for modern science.

Hope it's clearer.

DensetsuNo Can you help eliminate option B here? I would also like to understand what "qualify" means in the correct answer A. What I know is that on the GMAT land in CR questions, "qualify" means "to restrict something". Is it used synonymously here?

Thanks!

No, Qualify here means to strengthen what the Prevailing scholarly opinion is.

The passage starts with their opinion and then tries to condemn it by saying revolution should be linked with way of approaching the study of nature which happened in the 14th century. Then using Buridan's theory it suggests that revolution began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries. Hence, Strengthening what the Prevailing scholarly opinion is. Hence, I can also say it qualifies their opinion. Hence, A.

B is wrong because it is not capturing the entire picture of the passage. It is not saying that there were few objects but later got resolved as A does. Hence, Incorrect
_________________

Keats, you can understand that the author isn't just summarizing from this sentence: "Modern science should not, however, be", you can see how he is not just making a summary but he's trying to convey some sort of opinion, some sort of "the way things should be considered".

Hope it helps.

Hi DensetsuNo!

The author in the passage states that "Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century." Isn't he implying that the prevailing opinion that holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is not entirely correct? How can A be the answer? Please clarify this..

Read the lines

"Jean Buridan, a prominent fourteenth-century Parisian scholar, argued that science is predicted on the assumption of the “common course of nature” This profound assumption represented a major shift in scholarly focus from the theological investigation of the uncommon or miraculous to the attempted explanation of the regular structure and operation of the world in purely rational and secular terms."

It says that there was a change in the view from theoretical investigation to the practical one. And after these lines, the author is strengthening the same. So, A is correct.
_________________

While I got this wrong in my CAT (i marked A), i am convinced that option D is the correct answer.

Option A is a great trap - if you skim thru the option as "the use of experiments is the crucial factor enabling scientists...described as modern science", you will most certainly go ahead with it as it draws parallel from the passage "The one important ingredient of modern science was the widespread use of experiments,..."

Option C clearly is the correct answer. Read from the passage "Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the 14th century."

Important lesson learnt - give enough time to each question; don't just rush thru it! No skimming the passage / No skimming the answer choices!

DensetsuNo, Can you explain why A is wrong? Yes, the passage mentions: "The one important ingredient of modern science was the widespread use of experiments..." Which part of A is not right?

Here is the definition of Qualify: to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualify

According to DensetsuNo previous explanation, the author agrees that the prevailing scholarly opinion that modern science began with the great achievements of ... . He further explains how modern science should be identified. The author's explanation on how modern science should be identified is an addition (restrict form) to the prevailing scholarly opinion.

Hi mikemcgarry ,

Could you explain me the answer choice of question 1 that is A . I marked answer choice C and would like to know that why is it wrong ?

The original topic is missing a question from this passage, which felippemed posted:

3) It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements concerning modem science?

A) The use of experiments is the crucial factor enabling scientists to engage in what can properly be described as modem science.
B) A certain set of scientific achievements had to be accomplished before scientists could engage in modem science.
C) The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries marks the beginning of what should be considered modem science.
D) The origins of modern science can be traced back to the articulation of a particular approach to the study of nature.
E) Any scientific experiments conducted before the sixteenth century were unlikely to reflect a focus on modem science

OA is D, but I chose A.

In the passage, it says: The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments, and the scientific revolution of the sixteenth century began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries.

Seems like A would be pretty straight-forward?

Can someone please explain why D is correct / why A is incorrect? mikemcgarry

Hi mikemcgarry

Many thanks for your exhaustive explanation to the inference problem. However, I feel more confused when I combine this question with the main idea problem.

I know what "qualify" means, ie. partially but not completely accept a point of view. But I simply can't see even any sign that the author should agree on the "scholarly opinion", which is "modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. "

while the author maintains the following opinions:

first, modern science origins from "a particular way of approaching the study of nature" rather than "great achievements";
second, modern science began in "fourteenth century" rather than "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries"

So neither the subject nor the time coincides with author's view. And plus, as you previously mentioned the sentence "Modern science should not, however, be identified with..." suggests a "qualify", but I seem to have seen such tune in a lot of passages and the "should not" seems more likely to imply a diametric opposition, doesn't it?

Would you please help to further explain what on earth the author "partially accept" ? Thanks for your time !

HI GMATNinja, mikemcgarry, DmitryFarber, MagooshExpert (Carolyn), ccooley, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun EMPOWERgmatVerbal

Can you please help me with below question.

2. According to the passage, which of the following constitutes prevailing scholarly opinion regarding the beginning of modern science?

(A) Many important elements of the modern approach to science were already in place in the fourteenth century
(B) The development of modern science was initiated by the pioneering work of Jean Buridan
(C) Modern science began with the widespread application of the principle of Occam's razor.
(D) Modern science began with a shift in focus from investigation of the miraculous to investigation of the regular operation of the world
(E) Modern science began with certain major achievements made during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

Below is the according to Prevailing scholarly
Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

This gives option A
Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century.
_________________

Remember not to look at anything after the first sentence for the answer! (a) The question is restricted to what prevailing scholarly opinion "holds" (~"believes") and (b) the author of the passage does not agree with "prevailing scholarly opinion". The author tells us, after that sentence about prevailing scholarly opinion, what he or she really thinks:

Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century.

However, this is what the author thinks, and it is the "opposite" of what prevailing scholarly opinion "holds". Therefore, to answer this particular question, which is restricted to what prevailing scholarly opinion "holds", we'll need to restrict ourselves to the following sentence, and ignore anything that comes after:

Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that (modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries).
_________________

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements concerning modem science?

(A) The use of experiments is the crucial factor enabling scientists to engage in what can properly be described as modem science.
(B) A certain set of scientific achievements had to be accomplished before scientists could engage in modem science.
(C) The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries marks the beginning of what should be considered modem science.
(D) The origins of modern science can be traced back to the articulation of a particular approach to the study of nature.
(E) Any scientific experiments conducted before the sixteenth century were unlikely to reflect a focus on modem science

HI AjiteshArun, workout, u1983, GMATNinja, generis

Thanks for detailed explanation. I've reviewed the thread but unable to get this right.

Can you please help me with this question. POE Pls

Authors View:

Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century
_________________

NandishSS , if you wrote that "Authors View" blurb (I assume that you did), you have your answer.

What should we look for to eliminate answers in a question such as this one in which the author revises a long-standing interpretation but is no revolutionary? She is fairly measured.
Answers that caricature the author's position will be tempting.
Do not fall for the exaggeration.
The author is measured. The correct answer will be, too.
The author has very little discernible ideological agenda except to get the facts right.
(Post-modern obscurantists: leave it alone . . . )
Okay, where were we. Ah. The author is mostly focused on facts.
Finally, look for opposite answers, often more than one.

3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements concerning modem science?


TEXT: The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments, and the scientific revolution of the sixteenth century began when scientists started to use experiments to discover new answers to questions that had already been pondered for several centuries.

Opposite. Mischaracterization.
(1) she argues that modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature (without theology, with observation, and with simplest possible explanations.
(2) Experiments led to the scientific revolution, not to what can "properly" be called "modern science."
ELIMINATE


The 180° - OPPOSITE answer.
Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements.
Second sentence.
Eliminate.

Opposite. This is the text:
Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Modern science should not, however, be identified with any particular set of scientific achievements. Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature, and many important elements of this approach werealready in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century.


Third sentence: . Rather, modern science should be identified with a particular way of approaching the study of nature
NandishSS , you included that sentence in your author's view. This answer is correct.

ANY is too strong. This author does not write in that manner. (A few folks I know could take notes . . .)
Again, this question is the opposite of what the author believes.

Modern science began in the 14th century. Any experiments between 1400 and 1600 were very likely to reflect a focus on modern science; by that time a different way of studying and explaining nature was already in place.
This question asks about "before the 16th century." We could be tempted.
The difference in the pre-16th century period? Experiments were not yet widespread. Eliminate

The answer is D.

Direct text eliminates A, B, and C.
The too-strong word "any" plus opposite content eliminates E.
All four answers required that I go back to the passage.

I hope that POE helps.
_________________

hi Mike - could you please share how we can possibly eliminate A for sure? i selected A as i thought it was well supported by the excerpt "The one important ingredient of modern science that was missing prior to the sixteenth century was the widespread use of experiments" - without the "full" set of ingredients, modern science was previously "incomplete". thanks!