Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the

Question

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 were already in place and articulated as early as the fourteenth century. Jean Buridan, a prominent fourteenth-century Parisian scholar, argued that science is predicated 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. Buridan also advocated the application of Occam’s razor, the principle that science should seek the simplest possible explanation that fits the evidence. 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.   1 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) qualify an established scholarly viewpoint regarding a certain issue
(B) summarize prevailing scholarly opinion regarding a certain issue 
(C) delineate the historical events that led to a change in scholarly opinion
(D) reconcile conflicting viewpoints in a debate
(E) recommend further inquiry into a particular topic

2 
 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

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

(A) The use of experiments is the crucial factor enabling scientists to engage in what can properly be described as modern science. 
(B) A certain set of scientific achievements had to be accomplished before scientists could engage in modern science. 
(C) The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries marks the beginning of what should be considered modern 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 modern science

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

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 :-)

mikemcgarry · Answer

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

DensetsuNo · Answer

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.

keats · Answer

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!

Thanks!

abhimahna · Answer

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

DensetsuNo · Answer

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.

Kritesh · Answer

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 ?

okay · Answer

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

NandishSS · Answer

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.

AjiteshArun · Answer

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  ).

NandishSS · Answer

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

generis · Answer

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 were already 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.

mSKR · Answer

I still have doubts.

I am little confused between A and D

Why I selected D 
 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.

crucial factor== one important ingredient ( it clearly means one among others)
enabling scientists to  engage == when scientists  started  to use experiments -- experiments happened in 16th and 17th

Why I rejected A: 
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.
Option says  Can  Be but in passage author says  should be  . By using can instead of should, it doesn't mean It can be .

What is your thought to reject A and select D.

Please comment  AjiteshArun   VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

Thanks!

KarishmaB · Answer

The passage states:
"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."

The author believes that modern science should be identified with a particular approach to the study of nature.
Hence (D) is correct.

(A) The use of experiments is the crucial factor enabling scientists to engage in what can properly be described as modern science.

The author describes "modern science" as above. He says modern science originated as early as 14th century. 
He says that one important ingredient that was missing was "use of experiments". But is it THE crucial factor that describes "modern science"? No. He says that modern science should be identified with a particular approach to the study of nature. According to him modern science started in 14th century.

GMAT2point0 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   mikemcgarry

I needed your help with Q1.

I had selected option D because I understood the passage as bridging two contradicting viewpoints on what is marks the beginning of modern science. The author says that he doesn't side with the prevailing opinion, shares what in his/her opinion marked a change in approach to scientific inquiry, and hence should be considered as the beginning of modern science. In the process, the author also mentions what happened in the 16/17th century to make it noteworthy in the history of science. Why can't we say that this is reconciliation of two sides of a debate?

I wasn't able to find any reasons to eliminate option A, except the phrasing 'certain issue'. I thought this isn't really an issue that's being discussed but rather a belief/opinion.

Please share your thoughts. Thanks!

GMATNinja · Answer

The prevailing scholarly opinion is that modern science  began  with the great achievements of the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The author, on the other hand, contends that modern science actually began as early as the fourteenth century. Those two viewpoints cannot be reconciled: if one is true, then the other must be false.

Yes, the author concedes that an "important ingredient" of modern science was developed in the sixteenth century, but that's not enough to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints.

Another clue against (D) is that there is nothing about a "debate" in the passage. Instead, all we have is (1) the prevailing scholarly view and (2) the author's view. The word "debate" would make more sense if the author was talking about a disagreement between two other groups of people.

(D) is tempting, but (A) is a better option. Yes, the 16th century was a major milestone for modern science, but only because of  an advancement  in modern science at that time, not because modern science  started  at that time. In that way, the author qualifies the prevailing view.

egmat · Answer

Since there are a couple of doubts on Question 1, sharing a detailed explanation that may help in understanding this question well enough.

Let's break this down together:

Step 1: Identify the author's stance vs. others' views 
Notice how the passage starts with "Prevailing scholarly opinion holds..." - that's not the author's view, it's what most scholars believe. This is your first clue that the author is setting up someone else's position. Why would they do that? Usually to challenge or modify it!

Step 2: Look for the pivot 
The key word "however" in the second sentence tells us the author disagrees. They're saying modern science  shouldn't  be identified with specific achievements (like what Galileo or Newton did) but rather with a methodology or approach. This is the author actively challenging the established view.

Step 3: Track how the author supports their position 
The author then provides evidence about Jean Buridan from the 14th century who already had key elements of the scientific method - like assuming nature follows regular patterns and seeking simple explanations. This isn't just historical information; it's ammunition for the author's argument that modern science started earlier than commonly believed.

Step 4: See how it all comes together 
In the final sentence, the author acknowledges what  was  new about the 16th-17th century scientific revolution (experiments) while maintaining their point that the methodological foundations were already centuries old.

So what's the author's primary purpose? They're  qualifying  (modifying/challenging) the established scholarly view. They're not completely rejecting it, but saying "Yes, the scientific revolution was important, BUT modern science actually has earlier origins than you think."

Why (A) is correct:  The author takes the prevailing view and modifies it - that's exactly what "qualify" means. They don't destroy the traditional view; they refine and adjust it.

Why (B) is wrong:  If the author were just summarizing, they'd neutrally present the scholarly view without challenging it. But that "however" and everything after shows they're arguing against the prevailing opinion, not just reporting it.

You can check out the  step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT  to see the complete Progressive Passage Analysis framework that helps you systematically track author stance vs. presented information in any RC passage. You can also explore other GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron for structured practice  here .

Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the

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

Prevailing scholarly opinion holds that modern science began with the

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