Question:hard

Deborah Mayo is a philosopher of science who has attempted to capture the implications of the new experimentalism in a philosophically rigorous way. Mayo focuses on the detailed way in which claims are validated by experiment, and is concerned with identifying just what claims are borne out and how. A key idea underlying her treatment is that a claim can only be said to be supported by experiment if the various ways in which the claim could be at fault have been investigated and eliminated. A claim can only be said to be borne out by experiment, and a severe test of a claim, as usefully construed by Mayo, must be such that the claim would be unlikely to pass it if it were false.

Her idea can be explained by some simple examples. Suppose Snell's law of refraction of light is tested by some very rough experiments in which very large margins of error are attributed to the measurements of angles of incidence and refraction, and suppose that the results are shown to be compatible with the law within those margins of error. Has the law been supported by experiments that have severely tested it? From Mayo's perspective the answer is 'no' because, owing to the roughness of the measurements, the law of refraction would be quite likely to pass this test even if it were false and some other law differing not too much from Snell's law true. An exercise I carried out in my school-teaching days serves to drive this point home. My students had conducted some not very careful experiments to test Snell's law. I then presented them with some alternative laws of refraction that had been suggested in antiquity and mediaeval times, prior to the discovery of Snell's law, and invited the students to test them with the measurements they had used to test Snell's law; because of the wide margins of error they had attributed to their measurements, all of these alternative laws pass the test. This clearly brings out the point that the experiments in question did not constitute a severe test of Snell's law. The law would have passed the test even if it were false and one of the historical alternatives true.

Which of the following conclusions can be drawn from the passage?

Show Hint

Think about what the Snell's law example proves about rough measurements and rival theories, rather than about what precision alone can guarantee.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
  • Experimental data might support multiple theoretical explanations at the same time, hence the validity of theories needs to be tested further.
  • Precise measurement is a sufficient condition to ensure the validity of conclusions resulting from an experiment.
  • Precise measurement is both a necessary and sufficient condition to ensure the validity of conclusions resulting from an experiment.
  • Precise measurement along with the experimenter's knowledge of the theory underpinning the experiment is sufficient to ensure the validity of conclusions drawn from experiments.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

This passage is built around one central warning from Deborah Mayo: an experiment only really supports a theory if the theory has passed a severe test, one it would probably have failed had it been false. The Snell's law story is there to prove this point. When the measurements were rough, several old and wrong laws of refraction passed the very same test that Snell's law passed. That single fact should guide how you read each option below.

  1. Experimental data might support multiple theoretical explanations at the same time, hence validity of theories needs to be tested further: this is exactly what happened with Snell's law, several rival, mutually exclusive laws all 'passed' the rough experiment alongside the true law. That is direct proof that one set of data can look consistent with more than one theory, and the passage's whole argument is that we must keep testing more severely to rule the false ones out.
  2. Precise measurement is a sufficient condition to ensure validity: the passage criticizes imprecise (rough) measurement, but it never claims that precision alone is enough to guarantee a valid conclusion. Sufficiency is a stronger claim than the passage supports.
  3. Precise measurement is both a necessary and sufficient condition: this repeats the error in the option above and adds necessity on top, again a claim stronger than anything stated in the passage.
  4. Precise measurement along with the experimenter's knowledge of the theory is sufficient: the experimenter's theoretical knowledge is never mentioned anywhere in the passage, so this option introduces a factor that has no support in the text at all.

Only the first option stays within what the passage actually says: data from one experiment can be compatible with more than one theory, so a theory's validity needs further, more severe testing rather than a single pass.

Let's summarize:

  • The Snell's law example is direct evidence that rough data can support multiple, even false, theories at once.
  • The passage never says precision alone, with or without theoretical knowledge, is enough for validity, so the 'sufficient condition' options overreach.
  • Mayo's real point is that severe, repeated testing is what separates true from false claims, not one clean measurement.

So the conclusion that best matches the passage is that experimental data can support multiple explanations at once, meaning theories need further testing.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension


Questions Asked in XAT exam