Q22

[norginz]

Can you explain why D is the correct answer? I'm not sure where the passage states that scientists should study mathematical statements just as how linguists study language. Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post!

This passage is a good example of how we have to stay on our toes as we develop our impression of the scale. We don't really get the author's opinion until the final paragraph:

"In pursuing the implications of this theory, linguists have reached the point at which they must ask: If words or sentences do not correspond in an essential way to life or to our ideas about life, then just what are they capable of telling us about the world? In science and mathematics, then, it would seem equally necessary to ask: If models of electrolytes or E = mc2, say, do not correspond essentially to the physical world, then just what functions do they perform in the acquisition of scientific knowledge?"

So the author's point is that scientists must ask the same type of question as linguists: what is the connection between their language (mathematics) and the world they seek to describe?

That's why (D) is correct. The author's main argument is that scientists need to investigate this connection.

(A) is incorrect because the author doesn't conclude that language and math are imperfect, he just says they need to be investigated.

(B) is out of scope: the passage suggests neither of these two ideas.

(C) is incorrect because the author never says scientists should temporarily stop seeking knowledge.

(E) is unsupported; the author uses linguistics as an analogy, but never suggests that the debate among linguists was a necessary precursor to the debate about scientific methodology. In fact, he concludes that this debate isn't really happening: "But this question has yet to be significantly addressed in the sciences."

Does that answer your question?

[norginz]

Yeah I see what you are saying. Thanks.

Could you also break down the passage by paragraph and show how each paragraph supports and leads up to the authors point of why scientists should investigate the connection between math and describing the world as linguist do with language? Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Sure! Here's a little passage map:

Paragraph 1: Some hold that mathematics is a kind of language. According to this view, explaining a scientific concept in terms of math depends on finding a mathematical concept that describes something about the world, as language does.

Paragraph 2: The relationship between language and what it refers to is therefore central to the issue of scientific knowledge. There's a debate among linguists: is the connection between language and the world real and essential, or is it basically arbitrary?

Paragraph 3: Here we get an explanation of the latter view, which the author says is gaining wider acceptance. Then he explains its application to science: accepting a mathematical statement as a description of some phenomenon really means recognizing that it's the best analogy out there for what's going on -- until we find a better one.

Paragraph 4: Here the author weighs in on the issue: if language doesn't have an essential connection to the world it describes, linguists must ask themselves what it can tell us about the world. Similarly, if math doesn't have an essential connection to what it describes, scientists must ask what it can tell us about the scientific phenomena it seeks to describe.

Does that help?

[sissixz]

Can I try my own understanding?

My summary is:

1st paragraph: the language of science is math.

2nd paragraph: two views about this relationship
3rd paragraph: the latter view is better and why
4th paragraph: something should be done
Well, here is my question. I can see the point that answer D is right. But I cannot see why it is right for a main idea question. For this answer just summarized paragraph 4. And according to some sort of reading comprehension experience, main idea should includes the most part. So D is weak for that reason.
Or is my understanding of main idea question wrong? Wish someone can give me some insights.

[giladedelman]

That's a great question, because this is an important point. Say it with me: the answer to a synthesis question (main idea/main point/main purpose/main conclusion/etc.) does NOT have to summarize the contents of the passage.

Notice how the question is phrased: Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the passage's main point? So it's not asking us for a summary, it's asking us for the main point, i.e., the conclusion. So that's what the correct answer has to express: the author's main conclusion. It doesn't have to discuss every part of the passage.

Does that answer your question?

[hippo3717]

giladedelman,

Would there be another reason to eliminate A though?

I definitely see how D would be the answer but
I chose A initially.

I thought that by pointing out the questions that the linguists would ask, the author was calling out that the latter theory is inadequate or "imperfect," thus this is why that the theory should be "re investigated."
If that were to be true, A is a good answer.

Or am I missing something?

[Cavetisy]

I initially chose A also, but I would say that it is in addition to the reason above factually wrong because of "rely on both." This is unsupported and the author doesn't state that scientist must rely both on language and math in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.