The author of the passage refers to ancient Greek philosophers to point out the gaps in Steven Pinker's argument about rationality. While Pinker views rationality as both a cognitive and moral virtue, the author suggests that he does not fully explore the role of moral and ethical education in shaping rational behavior.
By mentioning philosophers like Plato’s Socrates, who valued dreams and visions alongside reasoning, the author emphasizes that ethical and non-logical dimensions were integral to their understanding of rationality — aspects that Pinker largely overlooks.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Reveal gaps in Pinker's discussion of the importance of ethical considerations in rational behaviour.
The passage discusses Steven Pinker's views on rationality, particularly emphasizing its importance in both personal and civic life. While Pinker highlights the value of conscious, sequential reasoning, the passage also presents a contrast by acknowledging that many major achievements arise through creative intuition or sudden insight.
Examples such as Kekulé's discovery of the benzene structure and Mozart's symphonies illustrate how breakthrough ideas often emerge from flashes of intuition rather than from strict logical processes.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Great innovations across various fields can stem from flashes of intuition and are not always propelled by logical thinking.
The passage underscores Pinker's emphasis on sequential reasoning and the tools of rationality, suggesting that mastering these tools can enhance decision-making in various practical scenarios where individuals must navigate "uncertain and shifting information." The author's endorsement or support for Pinker's work revolves around the concept that logical reasoning "equips people with the ability to tackle challenging practical problems" [Option B].
Option A is inaccurate - although the author acknowledges Pinker's perspective on rationality as a moral virtue, they note that Pinker's exploration of the role of moral and ethical education is lacking.
Option C focuses on a specific application of Pinker's views and fails to capture the broader message.
Option D similarly confines the discussion to the broader utility of rationality in decision-making.
So, the correct option is (B): equips people with the ability to tackle challenging practical problems.
According to the discussion, the option not aligned with Pinker's perspective on rational thinking (and that of the ancient Greek philosophers) is Option C. The passage suggests that while sequential reasoning has its merits, many human breakthroughs arise from moments of epiphany or insight, not solely from deliberate, step-by-step reasoning.
Rational thought, as emphasized by Pinker and prefigured by Plato's Socrates, involves recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge (Option D) and arriving at independent conclusions (Option A), rather than depending on the authority or charisma of speakers.
Additionally, the passage acknowledges an ethical and moral dimension to rationality (Option B), which Pinker touches upon, though not in great depth.
Thus, Option C is the correct answer, as it diverges from Pinker’s outlined approach to rational thinking.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: