Comprehension
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. The principal of science, the de nition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scienti c “truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations – to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so di cult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.
We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we rst nd the “wrong” ones, and then we nd the “right” ones. Now, how can an experiment be “wrong”? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily xed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a “law” was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That “law” is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found is to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light. A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no signi cant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the wrong we are. Finally, and most interesting, philosophically we are completely wrong with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. The principal of science, the de nition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scienti c “truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations – to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so di cult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.
We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we rst nd the “wrong” ones, and then we nd the “right” ones. Now, how can an experiment be “wrong”? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily xed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a “law” was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That “law” is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found is to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light. A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no signi cant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the wrong we are. Finally, and most interesting, philosophically we are completely wrong with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas
Question: 1
Which of the following options is DEFINITELY NOT an approximation to the complete truth?
Which of the following options is DEFINITELY NOT an approximation to the complete truth?
Show Hint
Watch for \textbf{self-referential contradictions}. Claims that require you to know the content of what you claim not to know are inherently incoherent.
Updated On: Aug 25, 2025
- I know that I know.
- I know that I do not know.
- I know what I know.
- I know what I do not know.
- I know that others do not know.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Interpret “approximation to the complete truth.”
An approximation to complete truth must be logically possible and epistemically coherent. Statements that are self-contradictory cannot approximate truth.
Step 2: Check each option for coherence.
(A) “I know that I know.” — A self-ascriptive claim of knowledge about one’s knowing. It can be true (e.g., I know a fact and I’m aware of knowing it). $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
(B) “I know that I do not know.” — Classic Socratic stance: knowing one’s ignorance about some subject. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
(C) “I know what I know.” — Tautologically acceptable: the set of my known propositions is known to me in principle. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent (though trivial).
(D) “I know {what} I do not know.” — Claims knowledge of the {specific content} that one {does not know}. If you genuinely do not know a proposition’s content, you cannot simultaneously know {that content}. At best you can know {that there exist unknowns} or {the domain} of ignorance, not the unknown truths themselves. $\Rightarrow$ Self-defeating, hence cannot approximate complete truth.
(E) “I know that others do not know.” — Could be true in contexts where one has evidence that others lack certain knowledge. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
Step 3: Conclude.
Only (D) is logically impossible as stated; therefore it is definitely not an approximation to the complete truth.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (D) I know what I do not know.}} \]
An approximation to complete truth must be logically possible and epistemically coherent. Statements that are self-contradictory cannot approximate truth.
Step 2: Check each option for coherence.
(A) “I know that I know.” — A self-ascriptive claim of knowledge about one’s knowing. It can be true (e.g., I know a fact and I’m aware of knowing it). $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
(B) “I know that I do not know.” — Classic Socratic stance: knowing one’s ignorance about some subject. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
(C) “I know what I know.” — Tautologically acceptable: the set of my known propositions is known to me in principle. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent (though trivial).
(D) “I know {what} I do not know.” — Claims knowledge of the {specific content} that one {does not know}. If you genuinely do not know a proposition’s content, you cannot simultaneously know {that content}. At best you can know {that there exist unknowns} or {the domain} of ignorance, not the unknown truths themselves. $\Rightarrow$ Self-defeating, hence cannot approximate complete truth.
(E) “I know that others do not know.” — Could be true in contexts where one has evidence that others lack certain knowledge. $\Rightarrow$ Coherent.
Step 3: Conclude.
Only (D) is logically impossible as stated; therefore it is definitely not an approximation to the complete truth.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (D) I know what I do not know.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Consider the two statements from the passage:
Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.
Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.
Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?
Consider the two statements from the passage:
Statement I: The mass of an object never seems to change.
Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.
Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?
Statement II: Mass is found to increase with velocity.
Which of the following options CANNOT be concluded from the above passage?
Show Hint
In “cannot be concluded” questions, eliminate the options that logically follow. The remaining choice will be the one that stretches beyond the given passage.
Updated On: Aug 25, 2025
- Both statements I and II are approximation to the complete truth.
- Both statements I and II are complete truth so far as we know.
- Statement I is an approximation to the complete truth but Statement II is complete truth.
- Statement I reveals that experimental physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess are philosophically wrong.
- Statement II shows that theoretical physicists can pinpoint the shortcomings of experimental physicists.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is
Solution and Explanation
Step 1 (Interpret the given statements).
- Statement I: “Mass never seems to change” — reflects a classical approximation from everyday experiments.
- Statement II: “Mass increases with velocity” — reflects relativistic physics (Einstein’s theory), showing deeper scientific truth.
Step 2 (Check each option).
(A) True — Both can be treated as approximations, depending on the context (classical vs. relativistic).
(B) Possible — Within their respective frameworks (classical mechanics and relativity), both are seen as true.
(C) True — Classical statement (I) is approximate; relativistic (II) is closer to complete truth.
(D) Acceptable — Statement I indicates experimental observations alone may mislead without theoretical input.
(E) Incorrect — Nothing in Statement II directly claims that theoretical physicists pinpoint experimental shortcomings. This extrapolation goes beyond the passage.
Step 3 (Conclude).
The only option that CANNOT be concluded is (E).
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (E)}} \]
- Statement I: “Mass never seems to change” — reflects a classical approximation from everyday experiments.
- Statement II: “Mass increases with velocity” — reflects relativistic physics (Einstein’s theory), showing deeper scientific truth.
Step 2 (Check each option).
(A) True — Both can be treated as approximations, depending on the context (classical vs. relativistic).
(B) Possible — Within their respective frameworks (classical mechanics and relativity), both are seen as true.
(C) True — Classical statement (I) is approximate; relativistic (II) is closer to complete truth.
(D) Acceptable — Statement I indicates experimental observations alone may mislead without theoretical input.
(E) Incorrect — Nothing in Statement II directly claims that theoretical physicists pinpoint experimental shortcomings. This extrapolation goes beyond the passage.
Step 3 (Conclude).
The only option that CANNOT be concluded is (E).
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (E)}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
‘Big Bang’ is a popular theory related to the origin of the universe. It states that the universe was the outcome of a big bang that released enormous energy.
Which of the following is the MOST PROBABLE inference about the big bang theory?
‘Big Bang’ is a popular theory related to the origin of the universe. It states that the universe was the outcome of a big bang that released enormous energy.
Which of the following is the MOST PROBABLE inference about the big bang theory?
Show Hint
In science questions, check whether the theory originated as a mathematical/theoretical idea or as an observation. The Big Bang began as a \textbf{theoretical insight}, later supported by experimental evidence like redshift and cosmic microwave background.
Updated On: Aug 25, 2025
- Big Bang Theory was first proposed by experimental physicists.
- Big Bang Theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists.
- Big Bang Theory was first proposed by experimental physicists and then deduced by theoretical physicists.
- Philosophers got the Big Bang theory wrong.
- Big Bang theory is not an approximation of the complete truth.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory explains the origin of the universe as beginning from an extremely dense and hot singularity that expanded rapidly. This concept is primarily a theoretical construct arising from Einstein’s equations of general relativity and cosmological insights, before experimental confirmation.
Step 2: Evaluate each option.
- (A) Incorrect. Experimental physicists did not propose the theory first; they later provided confirming evidence (Hubble’s redshift observations, cosmic microwave background).
- (B) Correct. The proposal came first from theoretical physicists, notably Georges Lemaître, who derived the idea from general relativity.
- (C) Incorrect. The timeline is reversed: theory first, experimental validation later.
- (D) Incorrect. Philosophers are not central to the scientific proposal or inference of the Big Bang.
- (E) Incorrect. While scientific theories are approximations, this does not directly answer the “most probable inference” being asked here.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The most probable inference is that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists, and only later verified by experimental evidence.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (B) Big Bang Theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists.}} \]
The Big Bang Theory explains the origin of the universe as beginning from an extremely dense and hot singularity that expanded rapidly. This concept is primarily a theoretical construct arising from Einstein’s equations of general relativity and cosmological insights, before experimental confirmation.
Step 2: Evaluate each option.
- (A) Incorrect. Experimental physicists did not propose the theory first; they later provided confirming evidence (Hubble’s redshift observations, cosmic microwave background).
- (B) Correct. The proposal came first from theoretical physicists, notably Georges Lemaître, who derived the idea from general relativity.
- (C) Incorrect. The timeline is reversed: theory first, experimental validation later.
- (D) Incorrect. Philosophers are not central to the scientific proposal or inference of the Big Bang.
- (E) Incorrect. While scientific theories are approximations, this does not directly answer the “most probable inference” being asked here.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The most probable inference is that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists, and only later verified by experimental evidence.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Answer: (B) Big Bang Theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]- CLAT - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."
- CUET (UG) - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Read the sentence and answer the question: ``Not only did he forget my birthday, but he also ignored my calls the next day." Which of the following best describes the tone?
- CUET (UG) - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Read the passage and answer the The Reserve Bank of India was established in the year 1935. The Central office of RBI is in Mumbai. The main function of the Reserve Bank of India is to regulate the issue of Bank Notes and keeping of reserves with a view to securing monetary stability in India. It generally operates the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage. In this passage, ‘Bank Notes’ refers to
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Read the passage and answer the Animals are the most adorable and loving creatures existing on Earth. They may not be able to speak but they can understand. Domestic animals mostly move with humans. Wild animals generally live in forests. Animals play a vital role in maintaining nature’s balance. This passage primarily focused on the importance of
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
View More Questions
Questions Asked in XAT exam
- In an 8-week course, the teacher conducts a test every week, and the scores are in the range of 1–4. There are only two students enrolled in the course, \(R\) and \(S\). The following conditions are given:
- \(R\) and \(S\) scored the same on the first test.
- From the second test onwards, \(R\) consistently scored the same (a non-zero score).
- The total of the first three test scores of \(R\) equals the total of the first two test scores of \(S\).
- From the fifth test onwards, \(S\) scored the same as \(R\).
- The scores of \(S\) from the first two tests and all the remaining tests follow a geometric progression.
- XAT - 2025
- Algebra
- Arya, a graduate from a reputable institute, got a job in an IT company but became bored after a year. Her best friend S, who worked at the same company, joined a top-tier B-school for an MBA, which tempted Arya to pursue the same path. Her friend assured her that an MBA would boost her career prospects and salary. Arya started preparing for an MBA while continuing her job, but the challenge of balancing preparation with work made her consider leaving the job.
- XAT - 2025
- Analytical Decision Making
- There’s a community 30 km outside of the main city. Mr. S started a grocery business in the community after winning the bid by offering way above the rent initially drafted by the community council. The community council, led by Mr. D, agreed to the offer with a performance review every three years. Mr. S also agreed to provide an additional 15% of his grocery sales to the council, banking on the prospect of selling in higher volumes. After setting up his business, Mr. S noticed that SUV owners in the community usually bought goods in bulk from the city once a week and used his store primarily for daily necessities and occasional big purchases like mixer grinders.
- XAT - 2025
- Analytical Decision Making
- Four reviewers (R1, R2, R3, R4) are in charge of reviewing products from companies A, B, C, and D. Each reviewer provides a rating between 1 and 5 for the products. Due to a technical glitch, the original ratings were deleted, and only the averages calculated for each product (A, B, C, D) and each reviewer (R1, R2, R3, R4) were saved. The data available is as follows:Tasks:
A B C D Average 3 4 4 ? 4 3 ? 5 ? 4 ? 3 3 ? 4 ? ? ? ? 4.25 4 4 4 4.25
1. What are the missing values in the table?
2. How were the missing values calculated?
3.Verify the correctness of the given averages for both rows and columns. - A bought a phone from a store and paid \(\frac{1}{6}\) of the price using UPI, \(\frac{1}{3}\) of the price in cash, and the remaining balance a year later. He also paid 10% interest on the remaining balance after one year. What was the original price of the phone?
- XAT - 2025
- Percentage
View More Questions