Question

We can usefully think of theoretical models as maps, which help us navigate unfamiliar territory. The most accurate map that it is possible to construct would be of no practical use whatsoever, for it would be an exact replica, on exactly the same scale, of the place where we were. Good maps pull out the most important features and throw away a huge amount of much less valuable information. Of course, maps can be bad as well as good — witness the attempts by medieval Europe to produce a map of the world. In the same way, a bad theory, no matter how impressive it may seem in principle, does little or nothing to help us understand a problem.

• A. But good theories, just like good maps, are invaluable, even if they are simplified.
• B. But good theories, just like good maps, will never represent unfamiliar concepts in detail.
• C. But good theories, just like good maps, need to balance detail and feasibility of representation.
• D. But good theories, just like good maps, are accurate only at a certain level of abstraction.
• E. But good theories, just like good maps, are useful in the hands of a user who knows their limitations.

Hint:

When interpreting analogies, look for the specific quality being compared, not just general similarities. Here, the key was the balance between precision and usability.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The passage draws a parallel between theoretical models and maps. It states that an exact replica is useless, and that good maps (and theories) simplify information to highlight essentials while discarding irrelevant detail. The author emphasizes that overly detailed models lose practicality, whereas oversimplified models lose accuracy. - Option (1) stresses value despite simplification — correct in sentiment, but too general.
- Option (2) is overly negative and not aligned with the core analogy.
- Option (3) correctly captures the balance between detail and feasibility, which is exactly the underlying point of the analogy.
- Option (4) narrows focus to abstraction levels but misses the emphasis on balance.
- Option (5) shifts focus to the skill of the user, which is secondary in this context.
Thus, the most fitting choice is: \[ \boxed{\text{Option (3)}} \]