SSAT Upper Level Reading › Making Inferences in Narrative Science Passages
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Which of the following inferences does the passage expect its readers to make?
If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.
If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.
Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.
Fly-catchers are a type of insect.
The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
Let’s consider each of the answer choices to identify the correct one.
“The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.” - This cannot be true, because the author begins the passage by saying “The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects.” He also cites numerous other scientists’ opinions throughout the passage, so he can’t be the first person to have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
“Fly-catchers are a type of insect.” - The passage mentions fly-catchers in the following sentence: “Many \[hummingbirds\] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” This is a tricky answer choice in that it’s easy to misread the sentence and think that “just like flycatchers” refers to “other small insects” when in fact it refers to the act of “catching.” The sentence is saying that hummingbirds catch insects in the same manner as fly-catchers, not that fly-catchers are a type of insect. Plus, we are being asked to identify an inference readers are expected to make, and if this sentence did mean that fly-catchers were insects, it would be overtly telling us this, and there would be nothing we’d have to infer.
“Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.” - This answer choice is proven wrong by the following sentence: “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.”
“If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.” - Given that the questions of whether hummingbirds eat insects or honey and in what proportions is the topic of the passage, it may be easy to choose this answer choice because it seems like the one closest to the passage’s main idea; however, nothing in the passage supports this assertion.
“If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.” - This is the correct answer! The author initially states that “All the early writers down to Buffon believed that \[hummingbirds\] lived solely on the nectar of flowers”; however, he later states that “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” The author does not address the idea that flower nectar and honey could be different substances, and instead expects the reader to treat these as one source of food.
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
What can we infer from the underlined sentence, “Many \[hummingbirds\] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig"?
Some hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
All hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
Some hummingbirds live in the desert.
All hummingbirds live in the desert.
Gnats are rarely found near bodies of water.
What does the underlined sentence tell us? It refers to “Many” hummingbirds, not “all hummingbirds,” so we can’t infer that what it says holds true for all hummingbirds. This allows us to eliminate the answer choices that begin with “all hummingbirds,” leaving us with “Gnats are rarely found near bodies of water,” “Some hummingbirds live in the desert,” and “Some hummingbirds live near a body of water.” Regarding gnats, the sentence doesn’t suggest that they are rarely found near bodies of water, since it mentions hummingbirds “may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers” and implies that they do this by “sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” We’re down to two answer choices: whether some hummingbirds live in the desert or near a body of water. The sentence doesn’t mention anything about deserts; on the contrary, it tells us that “many” hummingbirds catch gnats. The way that these hummingbirds do this begins with them “sitting on a dead twig over water.” So, we are told that many hummingbirds catch gnats and that in catching gnats, they sit over water. From this, we can infer that many hummingbirds live near bodies of water.
Adapted from The Evolutionist at Large by Grant Allen (1881)
I am engaged in watching a brigade of ants out on foraging duty, and intent on securing for the nest three whole segments of a deceased earthworm. They look for all the world like those busy companies one sees in the Egyptian wall paintings, dragging home a huge granite colossus by sheer force of bone and sinew. Every muscle in their tiny bodies is strained to the utmost as they pry themselves laboriously against the great boulders that strew the path, and that are known to our Brobdingnagian intelligence as grains of sand. Besides the workers themselves, a whole battalion of stragglers runs to and fro upon the broad line that leads to the headquarters of the community. The province of these stragglers, who seem so busy doing nothing, probably consists in keeping communications open, and encouraging the sturdy pullers by occasional relays of fresh workmen. I often wish that I could for a while get inside those tiny brains, and see, or rather smell, the world as ants do. For there can be little doubt that to these brave little carnivores here the universe is chiefly known as a collective bundle of odors, simultaneous or consecutive. As our world is mainly a world of visible objects, theirs, I believe, is mainly a world of olfactible things.
In the head of every one of these little creatures is something that we may fairly call a brain. Of course most insects have no real brains; the nerve-substance in their heads is a mere collection of ill-arranged ganglia, directly connected with their organs of sense. Whatever man may be, an earwig at least is a conscious, or rather a semi-conscious, automaton. He has just a few knots of nerve cells in his little pate, each of which leads straight from his dim eye or his vague ear or his indefinite organs of taste; and his muscles obey the promptings of external sensations without possibility of hesitation or consideration, as mechanically as the valve of a steam engine obeys the governor balls. The poor soul's intellect is wholly deficient, and the senses alone make up all that there is of him, subjectively considered. But it is not so with the highest insects. They have something that truly answers to the real brain of men, apes, and dogs, to the cerebral hemispheres and the cerebellum that are superadded in us mammals upon the simple sense-centers of lower creatures. Besides the eye, with its optic nerve and optic perceptive organs—besides the ear, with its similar mechanism—we mammalian lords of creation have a higher and more genuine brain, that collects and compares the information given to the senses, and sends down the appropriate messages to the muscles accordingly. Now, bees and flies and ants have got much the same sort of arrangement, on a smaller scale, within their tiny heads. On top of the little knots that do duty as nerve centers for their eyes and mouths, stand two stalked bits of nervous matter, whose duty is analogous to that of our own brains. And that is why these three sorts of insects think and reason so much more intellectually than beetles or butterflies, and why the larger part of them have organized their domestic arrangements on such an excellent cooperative plan.
We know well enough what forms the main material of thought with bees and flies, and that is visible objects. For you must think about something if you think at all; and you can hardly imagine a contemplative blow-fly setting itself down to reflect, like a Hindu devotee, on the syllable Om, or on the oneness of existence. Abstract ideas are not likely to play a large part in apian consciousness. A bee has a very perfect eye, and with this eye it can see not only form, but also color, as Sir John Lubbock's experiments have shown us. The information that it gets through its eye, coupled with other ideas derived from touch, smell, and taste, no doubt makes up the main thinkable and knowable universe as it reveals itself to the apian intelligence. To ourselves and to bees alike the world is, on the whole, a colored picture, with the notions of distance and solidity thrown in by touch and muscular effort; but sight undoubtedly plays the first part in forming our total conception of things generally.
It can reasonably be inferred from the passage that __________.
bees and flies are visually stimulated
the author is more fond of bees and flies than ants
religious influences can be ascribed to insects
the author believes that ants have the ability to consider their actions
beetles and butterflies have the same types of brains as ants
The author suggests that bees and flies are visually stimulated in the third paragraph when he states that “We know well enough what forms the main material of thought with bees and flies, and that is visible objects.” In the second paragraph, the author suggests that beetles and butterflies do not have the same types of brains as ants. That the author likes bees and flies more than ants, the idea of ascribing religious influences to insects, and the idea that insects consider their actions are not mentioned or are stated as being false by the text.
"Cacti" by Ami Dave (2013)
Cacti are plants suited to the desert, and we must always keep this factor in mind when growing ornamental cacti in our gardens, for it helps us provide cacti with conditions that allow them to survive and thrive. For example, a cactus should never be watered over its body, as it will start to rot. This is because it is covered with a waxy coating which prevents water loss through evaporation. When one waters the cactus over its body, the waxy coating is washed away and the plant begins to rot. The amount of water that one must supply to the cactus is very much dependent upon the season and upon the climate of the place. During the summer season one should water cacti every four days, whereas in the rainy season, once every fifteen days is quite enough.
Cacti need a minimum of two and a half hours of sunlight per day; however, they should not be kept in the sun all day because they may wrinkle when exposed to too much bright sunlight. Unlike other plants, cacti produce carbon dioxide during the day and oxygen during the night, so they are ideal plants to be kept in bedrooms to freshen up the air at night.
If a cactus is to thrive and prosper, the size of the pot in which it is grown needs to be monitored carefully. The pot should always be a little smaller than the plant itself because it is only when the plant has to struggle to survive that it will thrive. If the pot is too spacious and the plant does not need to struggle, chances are that the cactus will die. Similarly, if a cactus shows no signs of growth, stop watering it. Watering should be resumed only when the plant begins to grow again.
The substrata of a cactus pot is ideally composed of pieces of broken bricks at the bottom, followed by a layer of charcoal above the bricks, and then coarse sand and pebbles above the charcoal. Leaf mould is the best manure.
Grafting cacti is very simple. A very small piece of the cactus plant should be stuck with tape to the plant that needs grafting. The smaller the piece, the easier it is to graft. To reproduce cacti, one has to simply cut off a piece of the cactus, allow it to dry for a few days, and then place it over the cacti substrate. It will automatically develop roots.
It is very easy to differentiate between cacti and other plants that look like cacti. All cacti have fine hair at the base of each thorn. The so-called “thorns” are in fact highly modified leaves which prevent loss of water through transpiration. If one ever gets pricked by cacti thorns, one should take tape, place it over the area where the thorns have penetrated the skin, and then peel it off. All of the thorns will get stuck to the tape and will be removed.
Which of the following can be inferred from the information provided in the passage?
Cacti follow a respiration cycle that is different than that of other plants.
Pot size is not an important factor in cactus growth.
Cacti are found in every desert known to man.
It is difficult to distinguish cacti from other plants.
People have been growing cacti in their homes for hundreds of years.
The second paragraph states that, unlike other plants, cacti produce CO2 during the day and O2 during the night, making them good plants to freshen the air when one is sleeping. Thus, it can be inferred that cacti have a unique respiration cycle, compared to other plants. The other answer choices are not inferences that can be made from the passage. The passage states that pot size is indeed a factor is growth, and the last paragraph mentions how it is easy to tell cacti apart from other plants. While the passage does mention that the cactus is a desert plant, nowhere does it say that cacti are found in EVERY desert. Similarly, the passage provides no information about for how long people have been growing cacti in their homes.
"Cacti" by Ami Dave (2013)
Cacti are plants suited to the desert, and we must always keep this factor in mind when growing ornamental cacti in our gardens, for it helps us provide cacti with conditions that allow them to survive and thrive. For example, a cactus should never be watered over its body, as it will start to rot. This is because it is covered with a waxy coating which prevents water loss through evaporation. When one waters the cactus over its body, the waxy coating is washed away and the plant begins to rot. The amount of water that one must supply to the cactus is very much dependent upon the season and upon the climate of the place. During the summer season one should water cacti every four days, whereas in the rainy season, once every fifteen days is quite enough.
Cacti need a minimum of two and a half hours of sunlight per day; however, they should not be kept in the sun all day because they may wrinkle when exposed to too much bright sunlight. Unlike other plants, cacti produce carbon dioxide during the day and oxygen during the night, so they are ideal plants to be kept in bedrooms to freshen up the air at night.
If a cactus is to thrive and prosper, the size of the pot in which it is grown needs to be monitored carefully. The pot should always be a little smaller than the plant itself because it is only when the plant has to struggle to survive that it will thrive. If the pot is too spacious and the plant does not need to struggle, chances are that the cactus will die. Similarly, if a cactus shows no signs of growth, stop watering it. Watering should be resumed only when the plant begins to grow again.
The substrata of a cactus pot is ideally composed of pieces of broken bricks at the bottom, followed by a layer of charcoal above the bricks, and then coarse sand and pebbles above the charcoal. Leaf mould is the best manure.
Grafting cacti is very simple. A very small piece of the cactus plant should be stuck with tape to the plant that needs grafting. The smaller the piece, the easier it is to graft. To reproduce cacti, one has to simply cut off a piece of the cactus, allow it to dry for a few days, and then place it over the cacti substrate. It will automatically develop roots.
It is very easy to differentiate between cacti and other plants that look like cacti. All cacti have fine hair at the base of each thorn. The so-called “thorns” are in fact highly modified leaves which prevent loss of water through transpiration. If one ever gets pricked by cacti thorns, one should take tape, place it over the area where the thorns have penetrated the skin, and then peel it off. All of the thorns will get stuck to the tape and will be removed.
The passage is most likely an excerpt from what type of document?
A manual about how to grow cacti at home
An informational brochure
A descriptive panel at a botanical garden
A science textbook
A personal anecdote about cacti
It most likely comes from a how-to manual, since it outlines the steps for planting and nurturing a cactus as it grows. A brochure would not contain quite as much information, and would not be detailed. A botanical garden would address the lineage of the plant and more about its genus and species, rather than how to grow it. A science textbook would explore the scientific analysis of the plant, such as how it obtains energy through photosynthesis and more facts along those lines. A personal anecdote about cacti would not need to give any information about how to grow one.
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Based on what is said in the passage, the author most likely believes that __________.
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects
hummingbirds eat only flower nectar
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly flower nectar
hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects
None of the other answers
This is a tricky question because in the passage, the author never directly states his opinion about what hummingbirds eat; readers have to infer it based on the evidence he presents. The author begins the passage by stating that while old scientists used to think hummingbirds ate only flower nectar, modern writers think that they eat “largely, and in some cases wholly,” on insects. He then presents evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects, and in discussing the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs, says that scientists sometimes find both insects and honey. For the rest of the paragraph, he provides evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects.
What can we infer from this? Well, we can tell that it’s not likely that the author thinks hummingbirds eat only flower nectar, because he provides evidence supporting the idea that they eat insects. This means that we can also discard the answer choice “hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects.” It’s quite reasonable to think that the author thinks that “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects” because he mentions that sometimes honey is found along with insects in hummingbirds’ stomachs. So, we need to figure out whether he probably believes that they eat mostly insects or mostly flower nectar. Let’s look at how the author phrases his description of the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs: “in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” So, if “in almost every instance” the hummingbird stomachs examined were “full of insects,” but “sometimes, but not generally” honey was also found, the correct answer must be “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects.”
Adapted from An Introduction to Astronomy by Forest Ray Moulton (1916 ed.)
It is doubtful if any important scientific idea ever sprang suddenly into the mind of a single man. The great intellectual movements in the world have had long periods of preparation, and often many men were groping for the same truth, without exactly seizing it, before it was fully comprehended.
The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws. Consequently, science was impossible until the truth of this principle was perceived, at least as applied to a limited part of nature.
The phenomena of ordinary observation, as, for example, the weather, depend on such a multitude of factors that it was not easy for men in their primitive state to discover that they occur in harmony with fixed laws. This was the age of superstition, when nature was supposed to be controlled by a great number of capricious gods whose favor could be won by childish ceremonies. Enormous experience was required to dispel such errors and to convince men that the universe is one vast organization whose changes take place in conformity with laws which they can in no way alter.
The actual dawn of science was in prehistoric times, probably in the civilizations that flourished in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. In the very earliest records of these people that have come down to modern times it is found that they were acquainted with many astronomical phenomena and had coherent ideas with respect to the motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. It is perfectly clear from their writings that it was from their observations of the heavenly bodies that they first obtained the idea that the universe is not a chaos. Day and night were seen to succeed each other regularly, the moon was found to pass through its phases systematically, the seasons followed one another in order, and in fact the more conspicuous celestial phenomena were observed to occur in an orderly sequence. It is to the glory of astronomy that it first led men to the conclusion that law reigns in the universe.
John Stuart Mill once wrote an essay on "Tideology" to discuss the social sciences, which he compared to knowledge of tides, about which he noted the concurrence of many different causes. Based on this passage, what do you think this means about the social sciences?
It is difficult to find regularity in their data.
They have always been around, for the tides have intrigued human persons from time immemorial.
Their emergence was crucial to the beginning of science.
They are well developed, given the many other developments in science.
None of the other answers
In this passage, the author discusses the fact that it is very difficult to have science when there is a concurrence of many factors that are related to each other only with difficulty. If Mill was claiming that this was the case for the social sciences, it is safe to assume (based on our passage's reasoning, at least) that such sciences discover regularity only with great difficulty.
Adapted from "Taking a Second Look: An Analysis of Genetic Markers in Species Relatedness" by Joseph Ritchie (2014)
Phylogenetics is the study of genetic composition in various species and is used by evolutionary biologists to investigate similarities in the molecular sequences of proteins in varying organisms. The amino acid sequences that build proteins are used to construct mathematical matrices that aid in determining evolutionary ties through the investigation of percentage similarities. The study of these matrices helps to expose evolutionary relationships between species that may not have the same overt characteristics.
Species adapt and evolve based on the pressures that exist in their environment. Climate, food source, and habitat availability are only a few factors that act on species adaptation. These stressors can alter the physical characteristics of organisms. This divergence in evolution has made it difficult to determine the interrelatedness of organisms by analyzing their physical characteristics alone.
For instance, looking only at physical characteristics, the ghost bat resembles a pigeon more than a spider monkey; however, phylogenetics has found that the amino acid sequences that construct the beta hemoglobin molecules of bats are twenty percent more similar to those of mammalian primates than those of birds. This helps reject the assumption that common physical characteristics between species are all that is needed to determine relatedness.
The differences produced by divergent evolution observed in the forest-dwelling, arboreal spider monkey and the nocturnal, airborne ghost bat can be reconciled through homology. Homologous characteristics are anatomical traits that are similar in two or more different species. For instance, the bone structure of a spider monkey’s wrist and fingers greatly resembles that of a bat’s wing or even a whale’s fin. These similarities are reinforced by phylogenetic evidence that supports the idea that physically dissimilar species can be evolutionarily related through anatomical and genetic similarities.
A scientist studied the relatedness of several reptilian species solely by investigating fossil evidence and has concluded that physical characteristics alone are enough to determine species relatedness. Would this scientist agree with the claims made by phylogenetic research?
No, because phylogenetics assumes that physical traits and characteristics are not the only objective and reliable markers in the study of species relatedness.
Yes, because phylogenetics is second to physical comparisons and thus supports the archaeologist's position.
No, because phylogenetics is an unreliable and new technique that has yet to prove itself in major scientific arenas.
None of the other choices are correct.
The scientist studied relatedness based on the fossil record of physical traits. Having studied this, he would not agree with the notion that phylogenetics may better explain relatedness via genetic factors. The rest of the choices are incorrect because they are not supported by the passage.
"Darwinism's Effect on Science" by Matthew Minerd (2014)
For much of the history of human thought, the sciences have studied subjects that seemed to be eternal and unchanging. Even the basic laws of the Nile’s flooding were investigated in the hopes of finding never-altering laws. Similarly, the scientific investigations of the ancient Near East and Greece into the regular laws of the stars ultimately looked for constant patterns. This overall pattern of scientific reasoning has left deep marks on the minds of almost all thinkers and found its apotheosis in modern physics. From the time of the early renaissance to the nineteenth century, physics represented the ultimate expression of scientific investigation for almost all thinkers. Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth. By the nineteenth century, it had appeared that only a few details had to be “cleared up” before all science was basically known.
In many ways, this situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Darwinism. It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well. Darwin’s theories of evolution challenged many aspects of the “static” worldview. Even those who did not believe that a divine being created an unchanging world were shaken by the new vistas opened up to science by his studies. It had been a long-accepted inheritance of Western culture to believe that the species of living organisms were unchanging in nature. Though there might be many different kinds of creatures, the kinds themselves were not believed to change. The thesis of a universal morphing of types shattered this cosmology, replacing the old world-view with a totally new one. Among the things that had to change in light of Darwin’s work was the very view of science held by most people.
Which of the following is implied in this passage about modern physics?
It was viewed as the science that explained all others.
It was dogmatically tied to Renaissance ideas.
It was freed of superstition during the Renaissance.
It was singularly new in the history of scientific thought.
None of the other answers
The best sentence for answering this question is, "Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth." The first paragraph implies that physics appeared to provide the principles needed for explaining all things. It would therefore appear to many to be the "science of sciences." (Indeed, this has been the temptation in real history as well, though that is another, complex story!)
Adapted from An Introduction to Astronomy by Forest Ray Moulton (1916 ed.)
It is doubtful if any important scientific idea ever sprang suddenly into the mind of a single man. The great intellectual movements in the world have had long periods of preparation, and often many men were groping for the same truth, without exactly seizing it, before it was fully comprehended.
The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws. Consequently, science was impossible until the truth of this principle was perceived, at least as applied to a limited part of nature.
The phenomena of ordinary observation, as, for example, the weather, depend on such a multitude of factors that it was not easy for men in their primitive state to discover that they occur in harmony with fixed laws. This was the age of superstition, when nature was supposed to be controlled by a great number of capricious gods whose favor could be won by childish ceremonies. Enormous experience was required to dispel such errors and to convince men that the universe is one vast organization whose changes take place in conformity with laws which they can in no way alter.
The actual dawn of science was in prehistoric times, probably in the civilizations that flourished in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. In the very earliest records of these people that have come down to modern times it is found that they were acquainted with many astronomical phenomena and had coherent ideas with respect to the motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. It is perfectly clear from their writings that it was from their observations of the heavenly bodies that they first obtained the idea that the universe is not a chaos. Day and night were seen to succeed each other regularly, the moon was found to pass through its phases systematically, the seasons followed one another in order, and in fact the more conspicuous celestial phenomena were observed to occur in an orderly sequence. It is to the glory of astronomy that it first led men to the conclusion that law reigns in the universe.
Based on the author’s words, what could we say about the discoveries of Newton or Galileo, whom many consider to be geniuses far greater than most other scientists in history?
Their work must be seen in a broader context of scientific history.
Their work was revolutionary, overturning the results of almost every previous finding.
Their work came forth uniquely and suddenly, like Athena from the brow of Zeus.
They were the first to notice the orderliness of celestial motion.
None of the other answers
The very topic sentence of the first paragraph is all that is needed to answer this question correctly. Almost all scientific advances have been prepared by the work of many hands, and while some one person might have undertaken pivotal experiments, it should not be believe to have sprung directly from that one person alone. Hence, even though Galileo, Newton, and others are quite unique in their influence, they are not the sole sources of scientific thought.