Question

Directions for questions 37 to 41: Analyze the statements given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Prediction, the hallmark of natural sciences, appears to have been possible by reducing phenomena to mathematical expressions. Some social scientists also want the power to predict accurately and assume they ought to perform the same reduction. But this would be a mistake, it would neglect data that are not easily mathematized and thereby would only distort the social phenomena.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

• A. The social sciences do not have as much predictive power as the natural sciences.
• B. Mathematics plays a more important role in the natural sciences than it does in the social sciences.
• C. Phenomena in the social sciences should not be reduced to mathematical formulae.
• D. There is a need in the social sciences to improve the ability to predict.

Hint:

Look for the signal phrase "But this would be a mistake", the sentence attached to it is the author's real conclusion, everything before it is background.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The passage makes an argument in three parts: a fact about natural science, an assumption some social scientists make, and the author's own verdict on that assumption. Finding the conclusion means finding the verdict, not the background facts.

1. The social sciences do not have as much predictive power as the natural sciences: the passage never compares how much each field can predict, it argues against a method. This is not stated.
2. Mathematics plays a more important role in the natural sciences than it does in the social sciences: this is closer to a background assumption the passage opens with, not the point the author is making.
3. Phenomena in the social sciences should not be reduced to mathematical formulae: this matches the line about the reduction being a mistake that would distort the social phenomena almost word for word, this is the author's verdict.
4. There is a need in the social sciences to improve the ability to predict: this goes against the passage, which warns against chasing predictive power through mathematical reduction, not for improving it.

The signal phrase "But this would be a mistake" marks where the author stops reporting what social scientists want and starts arguing against it. Everything after that phrase, including the talk of neglected data and distorted phenomena, is support for the claim that reducing social science to mathematical formulae is wrong.

Let's summarize:

• Background facts and assumptions are not the conclusion, they only set up the argument.
• "But this would be a mistake" is the pivot into the author's own judgment.
• The reasons that follow, neglected data and distorted phenomena, back up that judgment, they are not the judgment itself.

So the main conclusion is that phenomena in the social sciences should not be reduced to mathematical formulae, option 3.