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.
Not supported, because the author says that fruitful collaboration is unlikely if uninformed persons continue to view science as only materialistic and humanities as only idealistic. But we don’t know whether uninformed persons will continue to hold those views.
1%
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
Stems asking us to infer an idea implied by the claims in the passage (as opposed to identifying an idea that appears explicitly). Similar to most strongly supported questions in LR.
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).
