Popular science publications that explain new developments in science face a dilemma. In order to reach a wide audien...

BenMingov on November 13, 2019

Hi Ryan, thanks for the question!

This stimulus presents a dilemma. That to reach a wider audience, accept less accurate science.. Or fail to reach a wider audience and maintain rigorous science. The argument then concludes that the publications ought to stop trying to reach a wider audience. This would suggest that they value more rigorous science than reaching a large audience.

This is exactly answer choice C, while answer choice D is the opposite.

Hope this helps!

Bradkohl on February 20, 2020

To be fair it concludes they should 'try to give up explaining' to a wide audience. So it could be that they still want to reach a wide audience just not be as explanatory to that wide audience which is clearly an option by using more metaphorical language. Is there a method to tackling vague language like this?

amoli078@fiu.edu on August 31 at 10:51PM

I also understood that the conclusion meant they would just use metaphorical language

Emil-Kunkin on September 3 at 05:32PM

I think we can look to the parallel with the first sentence. The first sentence tells us that to explain new developments we have a dilemma. We must either sacrifice reach or accuracy. Since the author tells us we should sacrifice reach, we know we need to find an answer choice telling us accuracy is more important than reach.