+0
(Korean SAT Question #36)

Mathematics will attract those it can attract, but it will do nothing to overcome resistance to science. Science is universal in principle but in practice it speaks to very few. Mathematics may be considered a communication skill of the highest type, frictionless so to speak; and at the opposite pole from mathematics, the fruits of science show the practical benefits of science without the use of words. But those fruits are ambivalent. Science as science does not speak; ideally, all scientific concepts are mathematized when scientists communicate with one another, and when science displays its products to non-scientists it need not, and indeed is not able to, resort to salesmanship. When science speaks to others, it is no longer science, and the scientist becomes or has to hire a publicist who dilutes the exactness of mathematics. In doing so, the scientist reverses his drive toward mathematical exactness in favor of rhetorical vagueness and metaphor, thus ____________________________________________________________.

① degrading his ability to use the scientific language needed
for good salesmanship
② surmounting the barrier to science by associating science
with mathematics
③ inevitably making others who are unskillful in mathematics
hostile to science
④ neglecting his duty of bridging the gap between science
and the public
⑤ violating the code of intellectual conduct that defines him
as a scientist
+0
First, what's your choice, please? Why?

Clive
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
They say the right one is #5.

It is said that only 18% of Korean students chose the #5.

I agree #5 is the good one, but other choices can also be the good one like #1.
I think this is a hard test question, because I don't find the passage clearly written. It's hard to understand.
Here are some thoughts.

① degrading his ability to use the scientific language needed
for good salesmanship No. Good salesmanship is not a a greatly important attribute for a scientist.
② surmounting the barrier to science by associating science
with mathematics no
③ inevitably making others who are unskillful in mathematics
hostile to science no
④ neglecting his duty of bridging the gap between science
and the public no
⑤ violating the code of intellectual conduct that defines him
as a scientist Perhaps the best of these choices, but I am left wondering what this code consists of and why scientists are defined by it

In other words, I don' really like any of these choices.

Clive
Thanks, Clive.

There isn't enough clue for the blank, even though there could be best choice.

For #1, the writer didnot define about the attirbutes for a scientist. However, for students, #1 isn't the good choice, because #5 is a good one.

Th paragraph itself isn't enough to understand. I looked up the whole paragraph.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/science-and-non-science-in-liberal-education

Thanks again.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

5. In watering down science when explaining it to the public, the scientist neglects the "code of intellectual conduct" that defines him as a scientist, namely his scientific precision and accuracy, in favor of providing a shallow and flawed understanding of science to the public.