An effort should be made to dispel the misunderstandings that still prevent the much-needed synthesis and mutual supplementation of science and the humanities. ███
Problem ·Misunderstandings prevent the synthesis of science and the humanities
The misunderstanding should be dispelled. Science and the humanities should be synthesized.
Author sees this as a "caricature" of science. Author implies that science does not ignore or explain away the most essential human values. That science can have something to say about morality, religion, and the arts.
Scientists (mistakenly) view humanities as only interested in emotion and sentiment. That humanities are useless because it serves no pragmatic purpose (contra science and technology). That morality, religion, and the arts are of secondary importance.
Possible and even probably if focus is on common objectives (understanding people and the world).
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
10.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████
Question Type
Purpose of paragraph
Structure
In the last paragraph, the author advocates for her solution to the impasse between science and humanities. She advocates for “scientific humanism” as a way of combining the two sides.
a
to show that █ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████
The proposal in P1 is the proposal to synthesize science and humanities. The author doesn’t try to suggest this proposal is implausible. In fact, she advocates for it in the last paragraph.
1%
b
to show that ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████████
The author doesn’t indicate that the views in P2 and P3 are “correct.” The author thinks those views are wrong. She identifies misconceptions by both scientists and humanists.
15%
c
to present information ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████
The author doesn’t support any of the views in P2 or P3. The author thinks those views are wrong. She identifies misconceptions by both scientists and humanists.
0%
d
to present an ███████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████
This best captures the purpose. “Scientific humanism” is an alternative to the scientists’ views in P3 and the humanists’ views in P2.
84%
e
to offer specific ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████
The last paragraph doesn’t give specific examples of the views in P2 and P3. Rather, it shows that those views are wrong and advocates for a synthesis between both sides.
0%
Difficulty
84% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is slightly harder than the average question in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%138
148
75%157
Analysis
Purpose of paragraph
Purpose of paragraph
Stems that ask us to describe the purpose of a paragraph within the passage's broader structure, often in abstract language (e.g. "to offer evidence in support of the contention that...").
An umbrella tag marking questions that test our understanding of the passage's overall structure (e.g. Main point, Purpose of paragraph, Meaning in context, Describe organization).
Critique or debate passages contain multiple points of view on a particular subject. Sometimes the author takes sides and participates in the critique or debate, other times the author merely reports the debate.
Passages that present a particular problem and then discuss the implications of that problem. They also often explore one or more solutions to that problem (although they don’t have to).
