DISCUSSION: The author seems to think that the two sides can learn to talk to each other, but that it would be difficult.
The passage wouldn’t propose the solution in paragraph five if the author thought reconciliation was impossible. But it won’t be easy: why else would the passage mention religious reconciliation? Everyone knows that is often difficult.
- Lines 50-53 imply the two sides could learn to speak to each other.
- CORRECT. Lines 50-53 talk about what is “required”. That’s a necessary condition. The impasse could be settled, but only if the two sides examine their own evidence.
- The passage did not say whether both types of evidence were necessary. It just said that objectivists and subjectivists were arguing about evidence. But the passage didn’t pass judgment on whether they were right.
- Easily correctable? That doesn’t seem right. Paragraph four makes an analogy to religious debates, which are notoriously difficult to resolve.
- Lines 57-61 do mention new ways of gaining knowledge, but the passage doesn’t say that no progress will be made until new methods are discovered.
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly