Aishna1034
Can we please have an analysis of this passage and questions from verbal experts? I found it quite tough. @MartyMurray @
egmat @KarishmaB
Abstract discussions about the philosophy of science and epistemology rank among the toughest RC topics on the GMAT. Let me break this down systematically.
Passage Structure MapParagraph 1 (Lines 1-12): Introduction of the Topic- Main idea: Mathematics is viewed as a kind of language that scientists use to explain/describe the physical world
- Key point: Mathematical concepts attempt to accurately describe how the world functions
Paragraph 2 (Lines 13-24): The Core Debate- Main idea: There's a fundamental question about language's relationship to reality
- Two competing theories:
- Essential correspondence: Language corresponds to objects/behaviors → knowledge is solid and reliable
- Pure convention: Language-reality relationship is just agreed-upon conventions → knowledge is tenuous and relative
Paragraph 3 (Lines 25-44): The Prevailing View- Main idea: The "pure convention" theory is gaining acceptance among linguists
- Key implications for science: Mathematical statements become accepted as "true" not because they essentially correspond to reality, but because of their predictive power and efficiency
- These statements are held as true "until another, more compelling analogy takes its place" (lines 43-44)
Paragraph 4 (Lines 45-55): The Main Point- Critical transition: Linguists are now asking—if language doesn't essentially correspond to reality, what CAN it tell us about the world?
- The author's argument: Scientists and mathematicians need to ask the same type of question about mathematical models
- The key statement: "But this question has yet to be significantly addressed in the sciences" (lines 54-55)
Question 1- Main Point AnalysisThe passage establishes a
parallel between:
- What linguists ARE doing: Examining the relationship between language and what it describes
- What scientists SHOULD do: Examine the relationship between mathematical models and physical reality
The author's purpose is to argue that scientists need to undertake the same kind of investigation that linguists have been pursuing.
Why (D) is CorrectQuote:
"In order to better understand the acquisition of scientific knowledge, scientists must investigate mathematical statements' relationship to the world just as linguists study language's relationship to the world."
This perfectly captures:
- The parallel structure the passage builds (linguistics ↔ science)
- The prescription (what scientists "must" do)
- The purpose (to better understand knowledge acquisition)
- The fact that this is the direction the passage is pointing toward (especially in the final paragraph)
Why Other Answers Fail(A) "Both language and mathematics are imperfect tools"
- Too general and doesn't capture the main argument
- The passage isn't primarily about imperfection; it's about investigating the relationship between representational systems and reality
(B) "Agreement to accept some mathematical statements as more precise"
- This is a detail from paragraph 3, not the main point
- Misses the parallel with linguistics and the call for investigation
(C) "Scientists must abandon pursuit of new knowledge for systematic analysis"
- Too extreme—nowhere does the passage suggest abandoning the pursuit of new knowledge
- Distorts the author's measured suggestion
(E) "Without linguist debates, scientists wouldn't have begun exploring"
- Contradicts the passage! Lines 54-55 explicitly state this question "has yet to be significantly addressed in the sciences"
- Scientists HAVEN'T begun this exploration yet—that's the author's point
Common trap in abstract passages: Students often select answers that describe
what the passage discusses rather than
what the author is ultimately arguing. Choice (A) describes what the passage discusses; choice (D) captures what the author argues.
Question 2: Which statement supports the ESSENTIAL correspondence view?What you're looking for: Evidence that language naturally/inherently reflects reality (not just by human agreement).
Answer: (A)Why: If two languages developed
independently (no contact, no shared origin) yet categorize physical objects in remarkably similar ways, this suggests they're both tracking
real features of the world—not just making up conventions. This supports the essentialist view that there's something natural about how language maps to reality.
Wrong answer traps:
- (B) Languages that derive from each other could just share conventions through inheritance
- (C) Speakers of the same language agreeing is just internal convention
- (E) People believing in correspondence doesn't prove it exists
Question 3: Why is mathematics considered a language?Answer: (B) constitutes a systematic collection of signsWhy: Lines 3-6 directly state: "mathematics is a kind of language—a systematic contrivance of signs, the criteria for the authority of which are internal coherence, elegance, and depth."
The passage
defines mathematics as a language based on it being a
systematic system of signs.
Question 4: Primary purpose of paragraph 3?Answer: (B) elaborate the position of linguists who believe truth is merely a matter of conventionWhy: Paragraph 3 starts by saying the conventionalist view "has been gaining wider acceptance" (line 25), then spends the entire paragraph explaining
how this view works:
- Language use varies with accepted practices
- Truth = no promising alternatives to question it
- In science, mathematical statements are accepted as true by convention/predictive power, not essential correspondence
It's elaborating/developing the
conventionalist position.
Question 5: Why is "The ball is red" true for conventionalists?Answer: (A) speakers of English have accepted that "The ball is red" applies to the particular physical relationship being describedWhy: Conventionalists believe truth is about
agreed-upon conventions (lines 22-24), not essential correspondence. Lines 30-32 explain that for them, "a statement is true only when there are no promising alternatives that might lead one to question it."
So the statement is true because
speakers accept/agree it describes this situation—not because the words "ball" and "red" inherently/essentially correspond to reality.
Wrong answers:
- (C) and (D) describe essentialist views (correspondence to reality)
- (E) incorrectly makes it about mathematical concepts
I hope this helps you understand the passage better and how to approach different questions. Please feel free to ask any follow-up questions you may have!
I would strongly recommend you practice Easy/Medium RC questions here on these passage types. This will help you practice aggressively on these kinds of passages, and the detailed solutions will help you understand how to read such passages, understand them and approach different question types. Note that these are official questions.
Nov 20
Nov 22
Nov 25
26 Oct 2023, 03:00
