Analyse the following passage and provide an appropriate answer to the questions that follow.
Silver is especially and repetitively savage about what he sees as the extravagant claims made for particle physics, arguing that once the proton, neutron, and electron were found and their properties experimentally confirmed, the very expensive searches for ever more exotic particles, such as the Higgs Boson, were increasingly harder to justify other than by their importance to particle physicists. Most of the particles resemble ecstatic happiness: They are very short-lived and have nothing to do with everyday life. His repeated assault goes to the level of sarcasm: “Finding the Higgs Boson will be a magnificent technical and theoretical triumph. Like a great Bobby Fisher game.” Of course, this is a tad unfair, even if some of the claims of its practitioners invite such assaults on their field.
Question: 1
Which of the following, if true, will weaken the argument described in the passage?
Show Hint
When asked to weaken an argument, look for statements that directly contradict or undercut the central assumption. Here, the assumption was that “no application = wasteful,” which is invalid if knowledge typically comes before application.
All streams of new science need to undergo through a period of uncertainty and we should not criticize research in particle physics alone.
Necessity is the mother of every invention.
Knowledge has preceded application in all spheres of science.
Funding agency supporting research on Higgs Boson do not mind wasting their money.
Do not expect everyone to appreciate everything.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option isC
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Identify the main argument of the passage.
Silver criticizes particle physics research by claiming that the search for exotic particles like the Higgs Boson is unjustifiable. His reasoning is that such particles have no relevance to everyday life and provide no clear application, making the enormous expense seem wasteful. Step 2: What would weaken this?
If we can show that scientific knowledge often comes before its applications are realized, then the absence of immediate utility for exotic particles does not make the research worthless. This undermines Silver’s central argument. Step 3: Evaluate each option.
- Option (A): This is a general defense of science but does not specifically address the criticism about lack of application. It partially supports research but does not fully weaken the argument.
- Option (B): A philosophical statement about invention, too vague and irrelevant to particle physics specifically.
- Option (C): Directly undermines Silver’s point. If knowledge has historically preceded application (e.g., electricity, quantum mechanics), then exotic particle research may still lead to future applications not yet known. This weakens his argument strongly.
- Option (D): Even if funders do not mind spending, this does not challenge the validity of Silver’s criticism about lack of utility.
- Option (E): Suggests tolerance of differences in opinion but does not address the scientific justification. Step 4: Conclude.
The correct choice is (C), as it directly weakens Silver’s stance by showing the precedence of knowledge before application in the history of science.
\[
\boxed{\text{Option C — Knowledge has preceded application in all spheres of science}}
\]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Identify the statement(s) that is(are) logically consistent with the content of the paragraph:
I. Silver is an ardent critic of Higgs Boson theory.
II. Everyday life has nothing to do with experimental confirmation of the properties of proton, neutron and electron.
III. Identifying more information about Higgs Boson is a significant contribution to particle physics.
IV. Research on exotic particles in particle physics is an expensive proposition.
Show Hint
When checking consistency, match each statement with the exact words of the passage. Be careful with exaggerations or misinterpretations—if the passage does not explicitly support or imply it, then it is inconsistent.
Step 1: Restate the passage’s message.
Silver repeatedly criticizes particle physics, especially the costly search for exotic particles such as the Higgs Boson. He sarcastically describes the discovery as “like a great Bobby Fischer game.” The passage also emphasizes that such research is expensive and disconnected from everyday life.
Step 2: Test each statement.
- Statement I: True. The passage clearly portrays Silver as highly critical, using sarcasm against the Higgs Boson search.
- Statement II: False. The passage mentions that exotic particles have “nothing to do with everyday life,” but it explicitly says the proton, neutron, and electron do have experimental confirmation and applications. So this misrepresents the text.
- Statement III: False. The passage presents identifying more exotic particles as technically significant but questions their broader value. It does not affirm it as a significant contribution.
- Statement IV: True. The passage explicitly calls the searches “very expensive,” making this statement consistent. Step 3: Conclude.
Only statements I and IV are consistent with the content.
\[
\boxed{\text{Option E — Only I and IV}}
\]
