[Rohit .Sinha]

Originally Posted by kondapalli

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

I don't agree with the 4 th answer of 1st question because in the passage you should not iuse external information but here the answer says that the five islands are"Eurasia and australia.."

In the passage all they have said is 5 inhabitable islands.

Its like writing a passage on population and asking in the question that which country do you think should learn from this passage

a> India and china
b>undeterminable

So would you mark a or b?

1 and 3 seems a close call but 1 is too generic so I marked 3 but really not sure. But this for sure that 4th won't be the answer. Defies the basic rule of comprehension but again depends on the jokers in IIMs

[harinirajagopal]

Originally Posted by social_loafer

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

exactly.. the answer shoul be global patterns!! but these institutes!!

[harinirajagopal]

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.

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??

[harinirajagopal]

Originally Posted by kondapalli

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

and why shouldn the option for the 3rd question be option 1!!

[Rohit .Sinha]

Originally Posted by 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??

Yes Hari,

I did say that rules are not that important but "almost entirely" and not that important are two step brothers.

And why I say is because again last line in the para says "in part". That would with all surity negate the absolute part.

[Rohit .Sinha]

Originally Posted by harinirajagopal

exactly.. the answer shoul be global patterns!! but these institutes!!

I disagree there because pattern gives a feeling that every indivisual there is following the same rules with the paradigm and I have this feeling because the word pattern itself has never been said so its unlikely that paradigm and pattern will mean the same thing.

They have to be different. But thats where thedifference lies because rules are different are different for diffeerent communities but paradigm is not.

Otherwise what is the difference between a paradigm and patern here???

[arroway]

For the first question the passage does give the quote that comparison with the large islands we can arrive at certain results but it comes with a rider 'CAN' in the beginning of statement in passage it makes the option 4 kind of restricting in its purview ..means u can use them in only that way. like in example author has used cultural anthropologists example where the comparison is not used directly rather result of an resource abundance is given( which i feel is Fact according to author) hence it will negate option 4
i feel answer to it would be option 3 which has been reiterated over and over again in the passage.

about last question don't you people think more correct option would be 5 as it is fact (as i believe ) according to the author....

[arroway]

Originally Posted by harinirajagopal

and why shouldn the option for the 3rd question be option 1!!

well i think author used that statement to give his article a twist then completely negate this statement in the article..
the passage is all about how natural experiments are useful and are almost essential for different branches of science, history etc etc

[Rohit .Sinha]

Originally Posted by arroway

For the first question the passage does give the quote that comparison with the large islands we can arrive at certain results but it comes with a rider 'CAN' in the beginning of statement in passage it makes the option 4 kind of restricting in its purview ..means u can use them in only that way. like in example author has used cultural anthropologists example where the comparison is not used directly rather result of an resource abundance is given( which i feel is Fact according to author) hence it will negate option 4
i feel answer to it would be option 3 which has been reiterated over and over again in the passage.

about last question don't you people think more correct option would be 5 as it is fact (as i believe ) according to the author....

Because the pronlemr was never overcame. The passage explicitly reads that natural conditions are advantageous not anything else.

Please go through the second paragraph

[arroway]

Originally Posted by kondapalli

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

It might be useful.

for the last question i feel the answer might be option 1 as in the last paragraph author has started with example newton ,Lavoisier,maxwell gave solution to some long standing question on which the scientific community agrees upon without even defining characteristics which make them permanent . kind of saying in a way that something exists which guides everything but still is unidentifiable like a pattern which i believe suites the question...