Let us take the terms subjective and objective and see if we can

Question

Let us take the terms “subjective” and “objective” and see if we can make up our minds what we mean by them in a statement like this: “Philosophers and artists are subjective; scientists, objective.” First, the two terms make up a semantic pair. The one has no meaning without the other. We may define each by antonym with the other. We may define them by synonym by translating the last syllable and say that “subjective” pertains to a subject, and “objective” pertains to an object. By operation analysis we may say that subjects perceive or conceive objects in the process of knowing. The word “knowing” reminds us that we are talking about the central nervous system and should waste no time in examining our terms for their sensory, affective, and logical components. The terms are primarily logical. What, then, is the basic logical relation that establishes whatever meaning they have? What goes on in the world when a poet is being subjective, and how does it differ from what goes on when a scientist is being objective?

When the poet sings “ Drink to me only with thine eyes ,” he is responding immediately or in retrospect to an object, his beloved, outside himself; but he is fundamentally concerned with the sensations and emotions which that object stimulates in him; and whether the object justifies his praise in the opinion of others, or indeed whether there actually is such an object, is quite irrelevant to his purpose, which is the weaving of a beautiful pattern of sound and imagery into a richly affective concept of feminine loveliness. This is to be subjective.

Now the scientist is primarily concerned with the identity and continuity of the external object that stimulates his response. It need not seem absurd to locate the Eiffel Tower, or Everest, or the Grand Canyon, for that matter, in the mind because it is so perfectly obvious that they can exist as the Eiffel Tower, Everest, or the Grand Canyon nowhere else. Perhaps we can move a little closer to our definition of “objective” by suggesting a distinction between an object and thing. Let us define object as the external cause of a thing. Whether objects “exist” is obviously not discussable, for the word “object” as used here must necessarily stand not for a thing but for a hypothesis. There is, for example, no way of telling whether objects are singular or plural, whether one should say the stimulus of the Eiffel Tower experience or the stimuli of the Eiffel Tower experience. If then, it is impossible even for the scientist to escape the essential subjectivity of his sensations, generalizations, and deductions, what do we mean by calling him objective?    1 
 1. Which of the following is NOT a semantic pair?

A. chaos/order
B. fact/fiction
C. sitting/standing
D. light/darkness
E. virtue/vice

2 
 2. Which of the following pairs best exemplifies the subjective/objective opposition as defined by the passage?

A. art/philosophy
B. knower/known
C. object/thing
D. stimulus/stimuli
E. emotion/sensation

3 
 3. The passage refers to “Drink to me only with thine eyes” ( Highlighted ) primarily in order to

A. suggest the affective powers of sound and imagery.
B. exemplify the objective.
C. exemplify the subjective.
D. demonstrate how art can bestow universal significance on an object.
E. illustrate the difference between literal and metaphorical language.

4 
 4. Given the content of the first and second paragraphs, the reader expects that the third paragraph will

A. explain how the scientist is objective.
B. define the identity and conformity of external objects.
C. analyze what it is to be subjective.
D. discriminate between an object and a thing.
E. explore the implications of objectivity.

5 
 5. According to the passage, “objectivity” depends on the assumption that

A. discrete objects exist external to the mind.
B. one’s vocation in life should be logical.
C. subjectivity is a cognitive weakness.
D. science is a viable discipline.
E. the Eiffel Tower is a singular stimulus, not a diffuse experience.

6 
 6. Faced with this statement, “What you see is just in your head,” the author of the passage would be likely to

A. strongly disagree.
B. agree that the statement is probably true.
C. argue against the appropriateness of the word “just.”
D. assume that the person making the statement is not a scientist.
E. argue that what is seen cannot be located outside or inside the mind.

7 
 7. According to the definitions of the third paragraph, which of the following is (are) true of an object?

I. The reality of an object is hypothetical.
II. Whether objects are plural or singular is uncertain.
III. An object is the external cause of a thing.

A. III only
B. I and II only
C. I and III only
D. II and III only
E. I, II, and III

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

6. Faced with this statement, “What you see is just in your head,” the author of the passage would be likely to

Explanation

The author concludes by saying that  “it is impossible even for the scientist to escape the essential subjectivity of his sensations, generalizations, and deductions.”  Since everything is subjective, since different people each see the same thing a bit differently, one is seeming to devalue this case by saying that  “what you say you see is just in your head.”   In your head  is not an unimportant place; according to the passage, it is the only place.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

7. According to the definitions of the third paragraph, which of the following is (are) true of an object?

Explanation

The  third paragraph  defines an  object  as the  “external cause of a thing—a hypothesis,”  with its singularity or plurality indeterminable. This is a definition peculiar to this passage.

Answer: E

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. Which of the following is NOT a semantic pair?

Explanation

In  lines 7–9   (The one has no meaning without the other. We may define each by antonym with the other.), the passage says that in a semantic pair  “the one (term)    has no meaning without the other. We may define each by antonym with the other.”  In short, semantic pairs are pairs of direct opposites. Only  C  is not such a pair.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

5. According to the passage, “objectivity” depends on the assumption that

Explanation

The author tells us that scientists, whom he defines as objective, are  “primarily concerned with the identity and continuity of the external object that stimulates (their) response.”  That is, to be objective one must believe that the world is a collection of stable objects, each of which always looks the same.

E  is a single example consistent with this assumption but is not itself broad enough to support the question of objectivity in general.

D  is also too broad to be the best answer.

C  is not an assumption allowed by the passage.

Answer: A

sarkarsarbani · Answer

Sajjad1994 
Can you pls explain qstn2

guddo · Answer

2. Which of the following pairs best exemplifies the subjective/objective opposition as defined by the passage?

The passage defines “subjective” and “objective” through the relationship between the subject who knows and the object that is known. The subjective side concerns the perceiver’s sensations, emotions, and concepts. The objective side concerns the external object that causes or stimulates those experiences.  So the best pair is the knower and the known .

A. art/philosophy

This is incorrect. The passage mentions philosophers and artists, but it does not define the subjective/objective opposition as art versus philosophy.

B. knower/known

This is correct. The “knower” corresponds to the subject, and the “known” corresponds to the object. This best captures the passage’s  basic logical relation  between subjective and objective.

C. object/thing

This is tempting because the passage discusses object and thing, but this is a later distinction within the discussion of objectivity. It is not the main subjective/objective opposition.

D. stimulus/stimuli

This is too narrow. The passage mentions this only when discussing whether objects should be thought of as singular or plural.

E. emotion/sensation

This is incorrect. Both emotions and sensations belong mainly to the subjective side.

Answer: (B)

ReetArora · Answer

But opposite of sitting is standing

egmat · Answer

Hi ReetArora,

You're right that standing may be  an  opposite of sitting, but the passage sets a stricter bar for what counts as a  semantic pair , and that's where this choice slips.

Look at the definition the passage gives in paragraph  1 :

"The one has no meaning without the other. We may define each by antonym with the other."

So a semantic pair isn't just "two things that contrast." It's two terms that are  true complements  - each one is defined by the absence of the other, and neither makes sense on its own.

Test the other choices against that:

darkness  is literally the absence of light - you can't define one without the other.  chaos  is the absence of order;  fiction  is what isn't fact;  vice  is the absence of virtue.

Each pair splits the whole world into two halves: you're either in one or the other.

Now sitting/standing:  these are just two postures among many. If you're not sitting, you're not automatically standing - you could be lying down, kneeling, or crouching. And "sitting" has a perfectly clear meaning even if "standing" never existed. So it fails both parts of the definition: standing isn't the  defining  antonym of sitting, and sitting isn't  meaningless  without standing. That's why  C  is the odd one out.

A quick gut-check you can reuse:  for a real semantic pair, ask  "Is the second word simply the absence of the first?"

light / darkness - darkness = no light ✓
alive / dead - dead = not alive ✓
sitting / standing - "not sitting" doesn't force "standing" ✗

When the answer to that question is  no , it isn't a semantic pair - and that's exactly the case here.

Answer: C

guddo · Answer

Not quite. “Standing” can be a common contrast to sitting, but it is not a  semantic pair  in the strict sense used in the passage.

In a semantic pair, one term is defined by the other: light/darkness, virtue/vice, chaos/order.

“Sitting” does not require “standing” for its meaning. The opposite of sitting could also be lying down, kneeling, crouching, walking, etc. So sitting/standing are just two different  body positions , not a true semantic pair.

Answer: (C)

officiisimpedit · Answer

Hii egmat Team, Could you please also explain the 7th question

egmat · Answer

Hi officiisimpedit,

This one is a pure "find the line" question. Question  7  hands you  three  statements about what an  object  is, and every one of them is lifted almost word-for-word from the third paragraph. The trick is just to match each statement to its sentence.

Let me walk the three against the text:

I. The reality of an object is hypothetical. 
The paragraph says:  "the word 'object' as used here must necessarily stand not for a thing but for a  hypothesis ."  An object is treated as a hypothesis, not a confirmed reality - so  I is TRUE .

II. Whether objects are plural or singular is uncertain. 
The paragraph says:  "There is, for example,  no way of telling whether objects are singular or plural "  - stimulus vs. stimuli of the Eiffel Tower experience. That is exactly "uncertain" - so  II is TRUE .

III. An object is the external cause of a thing. 
The paragraph says:  "Let us  define object as the external cause of a thing ."  This is a direct restatement of the definition - so  III is TRUE .

Since all  three  are supported, the answer is  E (I, II, and III) .

A quick note on why this feels harder than it is: the paragraph is dense and the word "object" gets a special, passage-only meaning. If you tried to answer from your everyday sense of "object" (a solid, real thing you can point to), statements I and II would  seem  false - an object sounds real, and it sounds singular. But the question tells you to use  "the definitions of the third paragraph,"  so you must stick strictly to how  this author  redefines the word, even when it clashes with common usage. Do that, and all  three  land as true.

Answer: E

guddo · Answer

7. According to the definitions of the third paragraph, which of the following is (are) true of an object?

I. The reality of an object is hypothetical.
II. Whether objects are plural or singular is uncertain.
III. An object is the external cause of a thing.

A. III only
B. I and II only
C. I and III only
D. II and III only
E. I, II, and III

In the third paragraph, the author defines an object as the external cause of a thing. But the author also says that an object is not directly knowable as a thing; it is a hypothesis used to explain experience.  So all three statements match  the author’s definition of an  object .

I. The reality of an object is hypothetical.

True. The author says the word “object” must stand “not for a thing but for a hypothesis.”

II. Whether objects are plural or singular is uncertain.

True.   The author says there is no way of telling whether objects are singular or plural.

III. An object is the external cause of a thing.

True.   This is directly stated: “Let us define object as the external cause of a thing.”

Answer: (E)

Let us take the terms subjective and objective and see if we can

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Let us take the terms subjective and objective and see if we can

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards