Directions : Read the given passage and answer the questions based on that…
2022
Directions : Read the given passage and answer the questions based on that
What it means to "explain" something in science often comes down to the application of mathematics. Some thinkers hold that mathematics is a kind of language--a systematic contrivance of signs, the criteria for the authority of which are internal coherence, elegance, and depth. The application of such a highly artificial system to the physical world, they claim, results in the creation of a kind of statement about the world. Accordingly, what matters in the sciences is finding a mathematical concept that attempts, as other language does, to describe the functioning of some aspect of the world. At the center of the issue of scientific knowledge can thus be found questions about the relationship between language and what it refers to.
A discussion about the role played by language in the pursuit of knowledge has been going on among linguists for several decades. The debate is on whether language corresponds in some essential way to objects and behaviors, making knowledge a solid and reliable commodity; or, on the other hand, whether the relationship between language and things is purely a matter of agreed-upon conventions, making knowledge tenuous, relative, and inexact. Lately the latter theory has been gaining wider acceptance.
According to linguists who support this theory, the way language is used varies depending upon changes in accepted practices and theories among those who work in particular discipline. These linguists argue that, in the pursuit of knowledge, a statement is true only when there are no promising alternatives that might lead one to question it. Certainly, this characterization would seem to be applicable to the sciences. In science, a mathematical statement may be taken to account for every aspect of a phenomenon it is applied to, but some would argue, there is nothing inherent in mathematical language. Under this view, acceptance of a mathematical statement by the scientific community--by virtue of the statement's predictive power or methodological efficiency--transforms what is basically an analogy or metaphor into an explanation of the physical process in question, to be held as true until another, more compelling analogy takes its place.
Which of the following can be best inferred from the third paragraph of the given passage?
- A.
Mathematics isn’t so much a precise statement, as an imprecise metaphor or analogy that will work until a better one comes along.
- B.
Some linguists argue that the intrinsic nature of mathematics does not correspond to the conclusive idea of language.
- C.
Mathematics lacks the syntax and logic that a general language hold.
- D.
only (a) and (b)
- E.
All of these
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept
An inference question on a reading passage is answered only from what the text logically commits to — never from outside knowledge and never from a plausible-sounding idea the passage does not actually state. The correct inference must be directly supported by the wording of the relevant paragraph; any option that contradicts the passage or adds a claim the passage never makes is wrong, even if it sounds reasonable.
Application
The third paragraph reports the view of linguists who treat language (and therefore mathematics) as a matter of agreed-upon convention. Two key claims appear there:
It says "there is nothing inherent in mathematical language" — i.e. mathematics has no intrinsic property that ties it conclusively to the world; its authority rests on community acceptance, not on an essential nature. This is exactly the statement that the intrinsic nature of mathematics does not match a conclusive, reality-bound idea of language.
It says the scientific community's acceptance "transforms what is basically an analogy or metaphor into an explanation... to be held as true until another, more compelling analogy takes its place." This is exactly the statement that mathematics is less a precise statement than an imprecise metaphor or analogy that holds only until a better one arrives.
So the two statements about mathematics being an imprecise metaphor/analogy, and about its intrinsic nature not matching a conclusive idea of language, are both inferable from the paragraph.
Contrast
The claim that mathematics lacks the syntax and logic a general language has is not supported: the passage explicitly calls mathematics a language — "a systematic contrivance of signs" with internal coherence — so it credits mathematics with syntax and logic, not denies them. Because that claim fails while the other two hold, neither "all three together" nor any single one of the two valid claims alone captures the full inference.
Therefore the best inference is the combination of the two supported statements: mathematics as an imprecise, replaceable metaphor/analogy, and its intrinsic nature not matching a conclusive idea of language.