<p>Does science fiction serve a useful purpose? I cannot see much justice in the repeated claims that it sugars the pill of a scientific education: most of the science is wrong anyway and its amount is such that one might as well be reading Westerns in the hope of finding out about ranching methods. Science fiction's most important use, I submit, is as a means of dramatizing social inquiry , of providing a fictional mode in which cultural tendencies can be isolated and judged. many a trend hound would be surprised and perhaps mortified to discover how many of his or her cherished insights are common ground in science fiction.</p>
<h1>2</h1>
<p>Much of science in science fiction is hokum: some of it is totally wrong. But beneath all the surface trickery of science fiction, there is a general respect for science and some appreciation of its methodology, which is probably more important than the facts that can be found in a textbook. And because science fiction combines scientific elements with stories involving people and relationships, the genre serves as a link between the culture of the humanities and arts on the one hand, and of science and technology on the other. Younger readers of science fiction, not firmly fixed in either culture absorb both scientific and humanistic elements from their readings. Thereafter, neither culture can be quite so strange. </p>
<p>The attitude of each author toward the genre of science fiction might best be described as</p>
<p>A) unabashed admiration
B) qualified appreciation
C) open amusement
D) veiled distaste
E) utter contempt</p>
<p>I chose C which makes sense imo... Their putting out their opinions etc... but the answer is B..... where in the passage does it suggest it is QUALIFIED appreciation???</p>
<p>The authors clearly show no distaste, so D and E can be eliminated. Nor do they ostensibly depict admiration or amusement, so A and B can be crossed off without hesitation.</p>
<p>Therefore, the answer must be C, espoused by the evidence below:</p>
<h1>1"Science fiction’s most important use, I submit, is as a means of dramatizing social inquiry , of providing a fictional mode in which cultural tendencies can be isolated and judged. many a trend hound would be surprised and perhaps mortified to discover how many of his or her cherished insights are common ground in science fiction."</h1>
<h1>2"But beneath all the surface trickery of science fiction, there is a general respect for science and some appreciation of its methodology, which is probably more important than the facts that can be found in a textbook. And because science fiction combines scientific elements with stories involving people and relationships, the genre serves as a link between the culture of the humanities and arts on the one hand, and of science and technology on the other."</h1>
<p>Both authors appreciate science fiction, even if it’s only to an extent, because they recognize some value in the genre. “Qualified appreciation” in this case means something like “limited appreciation” (as opposed to full appreciation; neither of the authors think science fiction is without flaws). It doesn’t mean that the authors are experts or anything like that. In this context, to qualify is kind of like to give qualifications (conditions that must be met), which obviously makes something more limited (like, limited to more-skilled workers in hiring people for a job). So “qualified appreciation” refers to appreciation with limits, as opposed to open or wholehearted appreciation.</p>
<p>I approached this question by looking at the second words first:</p>
<p>A) admiration
B) appreciation
C) amusement
D) distaste
E) contempt</p>
<p>The choices A,D & E are all too strong for either passage.</p>
<p>Then, from passage 1 we take:
</p>
<p>And, from passage 2 we take:
</p>
<p>Here, it is evident that the authors are evaluating the role of science fiction. And choice B “appreciation” is closest in meaning to evaluation.</p>
<p>Lol the answer is obviously B. They QUALIFY their appreciation by also explaining some negatives of science fiction, while praising other areas of it.</p>
<p>To be honest, I didn’t know that’s what “qualified” meant, either. I had to look it up to justify it. Even if you didn’t know that you should’ve gotten the same answer by process of elimination. The authors are clearly not amused, not unabashedly appreciative (i.e., they are not outright appreciative), and they do not have “distaste” or “contempt” for science fiction.</p>
<p>Their attitudes are kind of moderate but closer to positive. The closest to that of the answer choices are “admiration” and “appreciation.” “Appreciation” is closer to a moderate description of their attitudes. You can appreciate something but not fully admire it.</p>
<p>Good grief - these writing samples are both wretched. As a reader, my first impulse is to redline them both. That being said, it is fairly clear that the answer is B. Neither passage is extreme so A,D,E are easily eliminated. Both then are fairly murky, and end on a vaguely positive note. Therefore, B would be the answer.
And, yes , to clear things up a little - ‘qualified’ in this context merely means ‘modifed/less than whole-hearted’, not ‘having some competency to judge’.</p>