-
tracyyahoo
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:03 am
- Thanked: 3 times
Bold : Newton & Leibniz
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz' that discuss one of Newton's books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton's calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz' own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz' notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton's calculus concepts and techniques are presented.In the historian's reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
1.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
2.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
3.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
4.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian's own position.
5.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
Well OA is D, why C is wrong, In second conclusion, it says that Leibuiz' notes are limited to early section of Newton's books, clearly it explains that Leibuiz doesn't copy the newton's, it should be against the first conclusion.
Why D???? Pls explain detailly!!!
Historian: Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz' that discuss one of Newton's books on mathematics. Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton's calculus concepts and techniques, and since the notes were written before Leibniz' own development of calculus concepts and techniques, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Leibniz' notes are limited to early sections of Newton's book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton's calculus concepts and techniques are presented.In the historian's reasoning, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
1.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is evidence that has been used to support an opposing position.
2.The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends; the second is that position.
3.The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends; the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
4.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is evidence offered in support of the historian's own position.
5.The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes; the second is further information that substantiates that evidence.
Well OA is D, why C is wrong, In second conclusion, it says that Leibuiz' notes are limited to early section of Newton's books, clearly it explains that Leibuiz doesn't copy the newton's, it should be against the first conclusion.
Why D???? Pls explain detailly!!!
