An examination of corruption provides the basis for rejecting the view

lol... if u see a question like this be happy cause that means u are already in 770 lvl. :D

I can be even satified with x where doesnt equals 770 and either x=760 or x>770.

Conclusion is : exact science of society can possibly be never constructed. He then gives example of corruption, which he
points out cannot be measured.
So the assumptions is E.- An exact science can be constructed only when the phenomena it studies can be measured.

KUDOS if u like

I chose B. Such a silly mistake. The question says that corruption makes exact science not possible, and further states that corruption is not measurable because it involves secrecy. If people no longer keep it a secret, then corruption will disappear altogether and question of measurement does not arise.
Therefore, science involves measuring, and if corruption is not measurable, science related to that is not possible.
However, primary purpose is not measurement. Measurement is a very vital part of science without which science cannot happen.

Further, A - some people believe - too vague
C - first, it can be an inference. and secondly, it is not an hidden assumption - it is given in the question.
D - it can be an inference but not an assumption.

CONCLUSION: An examination of corruption provides the basis for rejecting the view that an exact science of society can ever be constructed. WHY?
Because as with ALL OTHER social phenomena that involve deliberate secrecy, it is intrinsically IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE corruption.

Hence, our goal is to find the Assumption, which (i) CONNECTS the impossibility of measuring phenomena studied TO the impossibility of constructing an exact science and (ii) MUST BE TRUE so that the conclusion holds.
(A) Some people believe that an exact science of society can be constructed.
We don't care about what some people believe. Eliminate (A).

(B) The primary purpose of an exact science is to quantify and measure phenomena.
This is tempting. But if we negate (B), it becomes: The PRIMARY purpose of an exact science is NOT to quantify and measure phenomenon. But if so, the ability to measure phenomena CAN BE a NECESSARY requirements for something to become an "exact science". Negation of (B) does not break the conclusion. Eliminate (B).

(C) An intrinsic characteristic of social phenomena that involve deliberate secrecy is that they cannot be measured.
This is just a re-statement of a premise. Eliminate (C).

(D) An exact science of social phenomena that involve deliberate secrecy cannot be constructed.
This is a slight re-statement of THE CONCLUSION. But we are finding the ASSUMPTION so that the conclusion holds. Eliminate (D).

(E) An exact science can be constructed ONLY WHEN the phenomena it studies can be measured.
Notice "ONLY WHEN". So if phenomena studied CAN NOT be measured, the exact science CAN NOT be constructed. (E) successfully does 2 things:
(i) it connects the impossibility of measuring phenomena to the impossibility of constructing an exact science.
(ii) it must be true for the conclusion to hold. If we negate (E), it becomes: An exact science can be constructed NOT ONLY when the phenomena it studies can be measured. This would break the conclusion: if we can construct an exact science even when we can not measure the phenomena studied, we can not say that because we can not measure social phenomena like corruption, we can not construct an exact science.

Hence, (E) is correct.

KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

If I negate A, it becomes, some people do not believe that an exact science of society can be constructed.

Conclusion is :
An examination of corruption provides the basis for rejecting the view that an exact science of society can ever be constructed.

Analysis : If such a view doesn't exists (as negated version of option A mentions) wont be weaken the conclusion

Here's the correct negation of (A).

No people believe that an exact science of society can be constructed.

The author is providing evidence for rejecting the view that an exact science of society can ever be constructed. The author is not assuming that anyone has that view. After all, the author does not have to assume that anyone has that view in order to show why it's incorrect.

I have a question/confusion in the 1st line of the statement :

"An examination of corruption provides the basis for rejecting the view that an exact science of society can ever be constructed"

Using the word "rejecting" 1st sentence doesn't mean as follow?:

An examination of corruption provides the basis that an exact science of society can indeed be constructed.

Expert kindly help

When we have quantifying modifiers, we negate those.

'All' becomes 'not all'.
'Some' (which is at least 1) becomes 'none'.
'Most' becomes 'Half or less. than half'
'Always' becomes 'not always'
etc

So negation of 'some people believe that A can happen' is 'No one believes that A can happen'.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.