Question

Natural scientists have reduced the material they study to the language of mathematics which allows them to make accurate predictions. some social scientists wish to have such predictive power too and wish to accomplish the same reduction. yet this would be an error; it would neglect phenomena that cannot be adequately translated into mathematical expressions and thus would only distort social phenomena.

which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
a. the social sciences do not have as great a predictive power as the natural sciences
b. the language of mathematics plays a more important role in the natural sciences than it does in the social sciences
c. the social sciences have a need to improve their ability to predict
d. social science phenomena should cannot be reduced to the language of mathematics
e. what is responsible for the success of the natural sciences is its ability to predict

Answer 1

The main conclusion of the argument is that social science phenomena should not be reduced to the language of mathematics, as this could distort their true nature.

Step-by-step explanation:

The main conclusion of the argument is that social science phenomena should not be reduced to the language of mathematics. This is because mathematical expressions may not be capable of capturing all social phenomena adequately, and attempting to do so would likely result in a distortion of those phenomena. The use of mathematics in the natural sciences has indeed given them predictive power, but the social sciences contend with complexities and variables that often elude strict quantitative measurement.

Therefore, the answer to which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument is: d. social science phenomena cannot be reduced to the language of mathematics.