DISCUSSION: The article contrasts two sides. There are philosophers and determinist biologists. They believe science must obey universal laws of nature. Non-determinist biologists oppose them. They think that many things in life and science are determined by historical coincidence.
- The article only tells us that some biologists want universal laws (lines 16-17). So this isn’t even true, necessarily. It certainly isn’t the main point.
- CORRECT. Philosophers seem to think that science needs universal laws. Who know where they got that idea, since many biologists disagree with them. Non-determinists and determinists disagree with each other on universal laws (in the last two paragraphs).
- We’re told what philosophers have traditionally believed, but we don’t know what most biologists have tended to believe. This is the reverse of answer choice A.
- We don’t know whether biologists tend to be determinist or non-determinist. We only know that some are (lines 16-17) and some aren’t (lines 25-28)
- This is completely off base. We don’t know if ‘many’ biologists disagree with philosophers. We only know that “some” do (lines 25-28). And we know at least some biologists do agree with philosophers (lines 16-17).
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions