Question

Read the passage below and answer the question that follows.

History, if viewed as a repository not merely of anecdotes or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed. That image has previously been drawn, even by scientists themselves, mainly from the study of finished scientific achievements as these are recorded in the classics and, more recently, in the textbooks from which each new scientific generation learns to practice its trade.

Which of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?

• A. History of science shows a scientific way of looking at scientific developments and so helps scientific progress.
• B. History of science should contain only the chronology of scientific achievements.
• C. More scientific theories lead to more publications, which benefits publishers.
• D. History of science can present multiple interpretations to people about how scientific developments happened.

Hint:

Check which option matches the author's actual stand: that reading history as more than dates and stories can give a different, valid view of science.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

This question checks which statement lines up with the author's real position, that history, read as more than a timeline of events, can change how we picture science. Go through each option and test it against that position.

1. Scientific developments viewed scientifically to aid progress: shifts the focus to a "scientific" way of viewing history, but the author is arguing for a different way of reading history in general, not specifically a more scientific lens.
2. History should contain only chronology: this is the opposite of the author's stated view, the passage opens by rejecting history as "merely...chronology."
3. More theories mean more publications for publishers: introduces a business detail about publishing that the passage never mentions.
4. History can present multiple interpretations of scientific developments: fits directly with the idea that reading history differently, not just as dates and anecdotes, can produce a different, valid picture of science.

Only the last option stays true to the author's actual claim, that how history is read shapes what picture of science we end up with, so more than one honest interpretation is possible.

Let's summarize:

• The author is not arguing for a stricter or more scientific history, but for openness to more than one reading of it.
• Any option that adds unstated details, like publishing or pure chronology, moves away from what the passage actually says.

The correct option is the one saying that the history of science can offer multiple interpretations of how developments occurred.