Reading Comprehension

I found this passage very difficult to understand.
Please provide your inputs how to approach such passages.

The extent to which analysis of social phenomena is compatible with the
scientific method is a hotly contested question. Among international
relations scholars, historico-deductivist opponents of positivism claim that
in the pursuit of objective depictions of the causes, course, and
consequences of international phenomena the character and operation of
which are purported to exist independently of the observer, positivists
miss or dismiss the implicit attitudes, values, and ideologies embedded in
their work, which personalize and subjectivize their conclusions.
Positivism, these critics contend, attempts to impose on world politics a
coherent facticity akin to that of the natural sciences, but to which the
basic nature of world politics is indisposed.

For historico-deductivists, the problem of a posteriori
overdetermination is a case in point. In the natural sciences, replicability
and verifiability afford the findings of laboratory experimentation
potentially nomothetic status. In international relations, however, such
law-like generalizations about cause and effect are rarely if ever possible,
not only because events are unique, but also because of the multiplicity
of potential causes. Whether World War I resulted from disequilibrium in
the international distribution of power, the ascendancy of government
factions committed to aggression, or the accuracy of an assassin's bullet,
is, ultimately, unknown. For opponents of positivism, it is better to
recognize darkness than to pretend to see light.

While some leading positivists, most notably Pastore, admit as
"•knowledge"– only the sum of all tested propositions, for most it is the
very cloudlike nature of political phenomena that requires a clocklike
approach. Conceding that their subject does not permit nomothetic
propositions, the majority of positivists appear committed to Williams'
more moderate rule: "•The propensity to error should make us cautious,
but not so desperate that we fear to come as close as possible to
apodictic findings. We needn't grasp at the torch with eyes closed, fearing
to be blinded.

Positivists point to the potential of scientific analysis to yield
counterintuitive truths. A frequently cited example is Grotsky's study of
the role of non-state actors in international trade. Published at a time
when many scholars were convinced that multinational organizations had
effectively "•elbowed the traditional sovereign nation-state...out of
analytical existence in our field,"– Grotsky's research of the structure,
timing, and variance of state expenditures on foreign direct investment
effectively restored the state to its position as the dominant unit in
international relations scholarship. Despite several efforts, historicodeductivists
who had championed the new relevance of non-state actors
have not, as yet, successfully refuted Grotsky's findings-a consideration
that bodes well for those of us who believe that an end to this
longstanding debate, which has produced much timely and relevant
research, is not necessarily to be desired.

In addition to claiming that critics have mischaracterized their
methodological commitments, positivists also contend that the historicodeductivist
approach is subject to many of the same criticisms leveled against positivism. For example, on the twentieth anniversary of her
seminal article depicting the Peloponnesian War as the archetypal case of
power politics in action, Nash, perhaps the exemplar of the historicodeductivist
school, revisited her earlier findings, only to conclude that the
interaction between the Athenians and Spartans included significant
instances of cooperation and reciprocity. Even as Nash's confederates
praised the "•illuminating evolution"– in her thinking, many positivists
questioned whether Nash's antipodal findings corresponded to a shift in
her initial assumptions over time. The implication, of course, is that if
positivists' commitments at the level of proto-theory colour their eventual
conclusions, then they are not alone in this regard.


1. According to information given by the author in the passage, which of the
following is true of a posteriori overdetermination?
I. It presents a challenge to scholars' ability to produce nomothetic
statements about world politics.
II. It exemplifies the analytical confusion created by unique events that
often have multiple effects.
III. It suggests that the historico-deductivism is better suited than is
positivism to the study of international relations.
A. I only
B. III only
C. I and II only
D. II and III only
E. I, II and III


2. As used in the passage by Williams at the end of the third paragraph in the
statement,, "•We needn't grasp at the torch with eyes closed, fearing to be
blinded,"– the word "•torch"– refers to:
A. propensity to error.
B. nomothetic propositions.
C. political phenomena.
D. methodological commitments.
E. myths and superstitions


3. It can reasonably be inferred that the author of the passage is a:
A. professor of history.
B. professor of international relations.
C. diplomat.
D. journalist.
E. politician

Hell of a passage...no idea wht it says but here are my answers
ABD

lunarpower wrote:hmm, interesting -- looks like this passage has been lifted almost word-for-word, along with the questions, from the following kaplan source:

https://bit.ly/kzEDst

some further research is necessary here, but this passage has clearly been stolen. moreover, the original source is designed for the mcat (check out the book title), whose reading comp section is absolutely nothing like the corresponding section on the gmat. therefore, this passage (and probably this whole source as well) is worthless for gmat preparation.

Thanks Ron,

This is an awesome observation. I did not know that people can steal and sell things openly.
Most of the passage in the RC99 book are not representative of OG RC. I used this book mainly for the practice purpose as there are few OG passages. It seems that this book can ruin the strategy and confidence.

Thanks a lot for the reply.