[kondapalli]

Originally Posted by Rohit .Sinha

Dear friend,

About the third question, you are taking the written lines in isolation.

Explanation--

1. Last para, 3rdlast line

"The results are not prevented to be guided by the paradigms in the absence of rules."
"Nornal science can be detremined in part by the direct inspection of the paradigm.
This means that when the rules are not there, paradigms can play a big role their, but the very fact that the absence of rules have been mentioned, it is suggestive of they playing a role. And look at the highlighted part.


2. Yes I do have a problem with the first question but I strongly feel that answer id 4 i.e
"Ways of understanding the scientific tradition"

because

First paragraphs talks about the generality and a guiding ability of paradigms in the scientific tradition

Second paragraph talks bout the further detailed understanding of the undrstanding by using rules. But suddenly we see the author writing "Anyone who has tried to analyse or describe the scientific tradition will have.. principles". Then it hits you that what is the crux of the problem. Then again he reititerates the same thing in the last line "As a result, ..a given normal scientific tradition becomes.."

Third paragraph goes on to reitirate the same thing that paradigm plays an important role with or without rules. This confirms that rules are not that important to understand the tradition.

So how can 1st be the answer? i.e relationship between rules, paradigms and science when he himself admits that rules are not that important.

Yes...even I second that. Even I went for the same option.

It might be useful.

[Rohit .Sinha]

My only problem is I don't know whether to start preparing for the GD-PI or not with this kind of uncertainity.

If I don't prepare, and get calls then won't be able to do it in 1 month
If I prepare and don't get calls , would feel cheated.

Suggest puys wha to do??:neutral:

[kondapalli]

I can't agree with all of these aswell.
Sorry for the inconvenience by my pasting it here. :neutral:

[anarchy]

Originally Posted by Rohit .Sinha

My only problem is I don't know whether to start preparing for the GD-PI or not with this kind of uncertainity.

If I don't prepare, and get calls then won't be able to do it in 1 month
If I prepare and don't get calls , would feel cheated.

Suggest puys wha to do??:neutral:

Dude,
there's no SPECIFIC preparation required for the GD PI stage. All you need to do is remain well informed, about yourself, your surroundings (work ex or acads or both) and the world in which you live.
Most of the external info you can get from reading newspapers. Now that isn't too big an ask right..

Just start reading the papers for now and forget everything else


@kondapalli: I must say that I agree with your analysis... the options you have marked seem to be correct!

Cheerios, all the best..

[harinirajagopal]

and in the paradigms passage what about the second question which talks about loci of commitment and everything in plural and end up sayin the answer as a certain paradigm??

[kondapalli]

FYI guys,

THey are not my ans but ans given by some Website. I am arguing against all of them. Almost.

[CAT 2007]

Originally Posted by kondapalli

I can't agree with all of these aswell.
Sorry for the inconvenience by my pasting it here. :neutral:

I couldnt too...
For me, 60 is option 3, 61 is option 5.........

[social_loafer]

Originally Posted by harinirajagopal

and in the paradigms passage what about the second question which talks about loci of commitment and everything in plural and end up sayin the answer as a certain paradigm??

answer for that shd be 4..." loyality to global patterns..." .

[kondapalli]

Originally Posted by CAT 2007

I couldnt too...
For me, 60 is option 3, 61 is option 5.........

Ditto dude.
Went for the same options in the exam.

[harinirajagopal]

Dear friend,

About the third question, you are taking the written lines in isolation.

Explanation--

1. Last para, 3rdlast line

"The results are not prevented to be guided by the paradigms in the absence of rules."
"Nornal science can be detremined in part by the direct inspection of the paradigm.
This means that when the rules are not there, paradigms can play a big role their, but the very fact that the absence of rules have been mentioned, it is suggestive of they playing a role. And look at the highlighted part.


2. Yes I do have a problem with the first question but I strongly feel that answer id 4 i.e
"Ways of understanding the scientific tradition"

because

First paragraphs talks about the generality and a guiding ability of paradigms in the scientific tradition

Second paragraph talks bout the further detailed understanding of the undrstanding by using rules. But suddenly we see the author writing "Anyone who has tried to analyse or describe the scientific tradition will have.. principles". Then it hits you that what is the crux of the problem. Then again he reititerates the same thing in the last line "As a result, ..a given normal scientific tradition becomes.."

Third paragraph goes on to reitirate the same thing that paradigm plays an important role with or without rules. This confirms that rules are not that important to understand the tradition.

So how can 1st be the answer? i.e relationship between rules, paradigms and science when he himself admits that rules are not that important.



hey yaar... you yourself seem to agree that rules are not that important and the first option of the 3 rd question says that paradigms almost entirely define scientific tradion... not completely which is true without rules you can define tradition with paradigms .. isn' it??