2024 CSAT — Q31

Locate. This asks what the author emphatically conveys: separate what the author asserts from what he merely raises, questions, or hedges. The author asserts: science and mankind are inseparable (“Science and mankind cannot be divorced”; “The history of science is the real history of mankind”); science is wrongly treated as an abstract third party and “blamed for the horrors of war”; and he asks whether modern conflict is “the inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere.”

Test (asserted-vs-merely-raised + qualifier-match). Statement 1 — “without science, mankind could not have continued to exist.” The author asserts inseparability, not dependence for survival. “Could not have existed without science” is a stronger, causal-survival claim than “cannot be divorced from” — the passage’s caution has been flipped into certainty, and the author never asserts it. Not emphatically conveyed. Statement 2 — “science will ultimately determine the destiny of mankind.” This is precisely the proposition the passage raises as an open question and tilts against (the fault may “lie elsewhere,” i.e. with mankind). A claim the author questions is not one he emphatically conveys.

Eliminate by anatomy. (a)/(c) admit Statement 1 — the passage’s caution flipped into certainty: “cannot be divorced” inflated into “could not have existed without.” (b)/(c) admit Statement 2 — a step the text doesn’t license, treating an open question as if it were asserted: treating the author’s open question as his assertion. The transferable rule: on this question type, a statement is conveyed only where the author affirms it — not where he states a weaker version, and not where he raises it to question. Key: (d).

Statement 1: the author asserts “Science and mankind cannot be divorced” and quotes “The history of science is the real history of mankind” — an inseparability claim, NOT “mankind could not have existed without science,” which is stronger and unasserted (QUALIFIER boundary). Statement 2: the passage poses “Is this the inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere?” — it RAISES the science-determines-destiny idea as an open question and leans away from it, so it is not emphatically conveyed. Both invalid → (d).

Statement 1 — without science, mankind could not have existed till today. The author’s assertion is that science and mankind “cannot be divorced” and that science is mankind’s real history — an inseparability/identity claim. He does not assert that mankind’s very survival depended on science. “Could not have continued to exist” is a stronger claim he never makes. Not emphatically conveyed.

Statement 2 — science will ultimately determine the destiny of mankind. The passage’s closing sentence asks whether conflict is the inevitable result of science’s progress “or does the fault lie elsewhere” — raising, not asserting, science’s determining role, and leaning toward fault lying elsewhere. A questioned proposition is not emphatically conveyed. Not emphatically conveyed.

Neither statement is asserted. Answer: (d) Neither 1 nor 2.

This question type is won by the asserted-vs-raised cut and by matching the passage’s exact level of certainty. Statement 1 fails the certainty check — “cannot be divorced” is not “could not have existed without.” Statement 2 fails the asserted test — the author asks about science’s determining role and tilts away from it. Both are things the passage touches, neither is something it affirms, so neither is emphatically conveyed. The same closing question that the contested Q32 turns on also kills Statement 2 here.