It can be inferred from the passage that the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following sta...

Lauren-Au on August 11, 2019


Can someone please explain how to arrive at the proper answer and where we can find it in the passage because I am sort of lost. Thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina on August 11, 2019


Let's briefly review the passage.

Separation of science and the humanities is the result of a basic misunderstanding of the philosophical foundations of both and needs to be remedied.

Some humanists identify science with an absurd mechanistic reductionism and claim that human values involve a spiritual element that cannot be explained by science. This perspective is flawed and ignorant of modern science and scientific outlook in philosophy.

Some scientists claim that humanists are interested in nothing more than emotion and sentiment and thus, make no practical contributions to the survival of human society, asserting that areas of morality, religion, and the arts are of inferior importance.

There are misconceptions among both groups that are in need of correction. The correction would lead to "scientific humanism," a concept combining the common elements of both disciplines - a desire for a clearer understanding of people and their world.

Now let's look at the answer choices:

(A) Scientific humanism is characterized by the extension of description and explanation form science to the humanities.

This is incorrect. Scientific humanism is a blend of both disciplines that reflects common elements, not an extension of either field.

(B) A clearer understanding of people is an objective of humanists that scientists have not yet come to share.

That is incorrect, the author explicitly argues that the objective is the same: a clearer understanding of people and their world (lines 43-44).

(C) Controlled measures of aesthetic experience are of little use in the study of the humanities.

This is incorrect, the author argues that humanities in fact profit from attempts at controlled evaluation (line 47).

(D) Humanists have profited from using methods generally considered useful primarily to scientists.

This is the correct answer choice, the author states that "humanities ..profit from attempts at controlled evaluation," which is generally understood as a scientific method.

(E) Fruitful collaboration between scientists and humanists is unlikely to become more common.

This is incorrect, the author argues that "this reconciliation should not be too difficult" (lines 4-5).

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any further questions.

JackM on March 14, 2023

I was stuck between D and E because i saw support for both. Wasn't the support for E in the last one or two sentences?

Emil-Kunkin on March 17, 2023

I think that the last two sentences would contradict E, they tell us that the author thinks that collaboration is possible and even probable under the right circumstances. E tells us that suck collaboration is not likely to become more common.