Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 2408:00 AM EDT
-08:30 AM EDT
Meet Tuck at an informal student or staff-hosted coffee chat in a city near you!
Sep 2601:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included. Class starts Saturdays Sept. 26, 2026 - Dec. 19, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm ES
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
07 May 2023, 07:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
28% (02:29) correct
72%
(02:39) wrong
based on 317
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:45) correct 22%
(01:57) wrong
based on 282
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
While critics contend that the views expounded on in Against Method are tantamount to scientific anarchism, its author Paul Feyerabend maintains that his views stem not from a desire to promote scientific chaos so much as from a recognition that many of the fundamental tenets of science—rationality, empiricism, and objectivity, for example—are as seriously flawed as the “subjective” paths to truth that scientists are quick to repudiate. Feyerabend goes further by arguing that many methods that are now condemned in the scientific community played a critical role in historical moments of scientific progress. The fact that these methods helped science advance in the past indicates that scientists should think twice before they condemn them.
Much of Against Method is a case study of the events surrounding Galileo’s single-handed rejection of the geocentric cosmological model in favor of the updated heliocentric model. Feyerabend goes to lengths to point out that what ultimately allowed Galileo to succeed in convincing the Western world that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around) was the use of methods most modern scientists would deem highly suspect. For example, in attempting to explain why the rotation of the earth did not cause a rock dropped from a tower to follow a curved, rather than a straight, path, Galileo relied on several as-yet unproven hypotheses about the laws of motion, essentially begging the question for his own position. Additionally, his published works display a rhetorical style that reads more like propaganda than like scholarly work. By showing that these methods were critical to a crucial scientific advancement, Feyerabend casts doubt on whether these “unscientific” practices really deserve the criticism they so often garner.
Much of Against Method is a case study of the events surrounding Galileo’s single-handed rejection of the geocentric cosmological model in favor of the updated heliocentric model. Feyerabend goes to lengths to point out that what ultimately allowed Galileo to succeed in convincing the Western world that the earth revolved around the sun (and not the other way around) was the use of methods most modern scientists would deem highly suspect. For example, in attempting to explain why the rotation of the earth did not cause a rock dropped from a tower to follow a curved, rather than a straight, path, Galileo relied on several as-yet unproven hypotheses about the laws of motion, essentially begging the question for his own position. Additionally, his published works display a rhetorical style that reads more like propaganda than like scholarly work. By showing that these methods were critical to a crucial scientific advancement, Feyerabend casts doubt on whether these “unscientific” practices really deserve the criticism they so often garner.
1. Replacement of the word repudiate (Highlighted) with which of the following words would results in the LEAST change in meaning in the passage?
(A) overrule
(B) embrace
(C) underscore
(D) decry
(E) debate
(A) overrule
(B) embrace
(C) underscore
(D) decry
(E) debate
2. The passage implies that Feyerabend makes use of a “case study” (Highlighted) primarily in order to:
(A) demonstrate that since a canonical example of scientific progress itself made use of practices now deemed unscientific, scientists ought to revise their account of what is and is not acceptable scientific practice
(B) show that Galileo, in his attempt to prove that a rock dropped from a tower followed a straight, not a curved path, was guilty of many of the same errors in reasoning that make science controversial today
(C) underscore the notion that if science wants to keep thinking of itself as a field that is open to “subjective,” as well as “objective,” paths to truth, it needs to adopt some of the techniques that were prevalent in Galileo’s time
(D) back up the claim that tautological reasoning is acceptable only when used in the service of supporting hypotheses that have yet to be proven
(E) demonstrate that any endeavor in the philosophy of science that uses examples from history to support its claims is ultimately doomed to failure
(A) demonstrate that since a canonical example of scientific progress itself made use of practices now deemed unscientific, scientists ought to revise their account of what is and is not acceptable scientific practice
(B) show that Galileo, in his attempt to prove that a rock dropped from a tower followed a straight, not a curved path, was guilty of many of the same errors in reasoning that make science controversial today
(C) underscore the notion that if science wants to keep thinking of itself as a field that is open to “subjective,” as well as “objective,” paths to truth, it needs to adopt some of the techniques that were prevalent in Galileo’s time
(D) back up the claim that tautological reasoning is acceptable only when used in the service of supporting hypotheses that have yet to be proven
(E) demonstrate that any endeavor in the philosophy of science that uses examples from history to support its claims is ultimately doomed to failure
Manhattan GRE 5lb.
06 Aug 2023, 07:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
1. Replacement of the word repudiate (Highlighted) with which of the following words would results in the LEAST change in meaning in the passage?
Explanation
The gist of this sentence is that while scientists condemn certain practices as flawed, the methods they themselves use are subject to many of the same flaws. The correct answer will be a word, synonymous with “repudiate,” that means to condemn or denounce. Choice (D), “decry,” is the right word.
Answer: D
Explanation
The gist of this sentence is that while scientists condemn certain practices as flawed, the methods they themselves use are subject to many of the same flaws. The correct answer will be a word, synonymous with “repudiate,” that means to condemn or denounce. Choice (D), “decry,” is the right word.
Answer: D
19 Jul 2026, 07:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
For the 2nd question,
A is correct because the first paragraph states that practices modern science condemns actually played a "critical role in historical moments of scientific progress" and that "scientists should think twice before they condemn them." The second paragraph details the Galileo case study as a major example of "crucial scientific advancement" achieved via "unscientific" practices (like circular reasoning and propaganda). This directly implies that because a core historical example of progress relied on these methods, science needs to expand and revise its definition of acceptable practice.
B is incorrect because the passage explicitly states Feyerabend highlights Galileo's work to "cast doubt on whether these 'unscientific' practices really deserve the criticism they so often garner," rather than to paint science as negatively controversial.
C is incorrect because while paragraph one mentions "subjective paths to truth," the passage never implies that modern science must actively adopt specific 17th-century methods to preserve subjectivity.
D is incorrect because the text notes that Galileo "essentially begged the question" (circular reasoning), but Feyerabend uses this detail to vindicate Galileo's broader methodology, not to establish a rigid rule for when tautologies are acceptable.
E is incorrect because it is a total opposite. Feyerabend uses a historical example to successfully back his philosophical claims, meaning he believes historical examples are valuable, not doomed to failure
A is correct because the first paragraph states that practices modern science condemns actually played a "critical role in historical moments of scientific progress" and that "scientists should think twice before they condemn them." The second paragraph details the Galileo case study as a major example of "crucial scientific advancement" achieved via "unscientific" practices (like circular reasoning and propaganda). This directly implies that because a core historical example of progress relied on these methods, science needs to expand and revise its definition of acceptable practice.
B is incorrect because the passage explicitly states Feyerabend highlights Galileo's work to "cast doubt on whether these 'unscientific' practices really deserve the criticism they so often garner," rather than to paint science as negatively controversial.
C is incorrect because while paragraph one mentions "subjective paths to truth," the passage never implies that modern science must actively adopt specific 17th-century methods to preserve subjectivity.
D is incorrect because the text notes that Galileo "essentially begged the question" (circular reasoning), but Feyerabend uses this detail to vindicate Galileo's broader methodology, not to establish a rigid rule for when tautologies are acceptable.
E is incorrect because it is a total opposite. Feyerabend uses a historical example to successfully back his philosophical claims, meaning he believes historical examples are valuable, not doomed to failure
