DIRECTIONS for the question:The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

When we teach engineering problems now, we ask students to come to a single “best” solution defined by technical ideals like low cost, speed to build, and ability to scale. This way of teaching primes students to believe that their decision-making is purely objective, as it is grounded in math and science. This is known as technical-social dualism, the idea that the technical and social dimensions of engineering problems are readily separable and remain distinct throughout the problem-definition and solution process.

Nontechnical parameters such as access to a technology, cultural relevancy or potential harms are deemed political and invalid in this way of learning. But those technical ideals are at their core social and political choices determined by a dominant culture focused on economic growth for the most privileged segments of society. By choosing to downplay public welfare as a critical parameter for engineering design, we risk creating a culture of disengagement from societal concerns amongst engineers that is antithetical to the ethical code of engineering.

In my field of medical devices, ignoring social dimensions has real consequences. … Most FDA-approved drugs are incorrectly dosed for people assigned female at birth, leading to unexpected adverse reactions. This is because they have been inadequately represented in clinical trials.

Beyond physical failings, subjective beliefs treated as facts by those in decision-making roles can encode social inequities. For example, spirometers, routinely used devices that measure lung capacity, still have correction factors that automatically assume smaller lung capacity in Black and Asian individuals. These racially based adjustments are derived from research done by eugenicists who thought these racial differences were biologically determined and who considered nonwhite people as inferior. These machines ignore the influence of social and environmental factors on lung capacity.

Many technologies for systemically marginalized people have not been built because they were not deemed important such as better early diagnostics and treatment for diseases like endometriosis, a disease that afflicts 10 percent of people with uteruses. And we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably, which has led to a crisis of medical waste and health care accounting for 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Social justice must be made core to the way engineers are trained. Some universities are working on this ….. Engineers taught this way will be prepared to think critically about what problems we choose to solve, how we do so responsibly and how we build teams that challenge our ways of thinking.

Individual engineering professors are also working to embed societal needs in their pedagogy. Darshan Karwat at the University of Arizona developed activist engineering to challenge engineers to acknowledge their full moral and social responsibility through practical self- reflection. Khalid Kadir at the University of California, Berkeley, created the popular course Engineering, Environment, and Society that teaches engineers how to engage in place-based knowledge, an understanding of the people, context and history, to design better technical approaches in collaboration with communities. When we design and build with equity and justice in mind, we craft better solutions that respond to the complexities of entrenched systemic problems.

The author’s central claim appears in the first paragraph: students are asked to reach a single “best” solution defined by technical ideals, which “primes students to believe that their decision-making is purely objective”. This is technical-social dualism, the belief that technical and social dimensions are “readily separable”. The rest of the passage shows the harm of this approach.

The statement that engineering students are taught to focus on objective technical outcomes, independent of the social dimensions of their work, restates exactly this claim.

The claim of a shift “from humanism and social obligations to technological perfection” assumes that engineering pedagogy once centred on humanism; the passage never describes such an earlier stage.

The claim that non-subjective reasoning “best enables” universal solutions presents the current approach approvingly, whereas the author criticises it as disengaging engineers from societal concerns.

The claim that technical-social dualism helps students incorporate social considerations reverses the passage: dualism is the very idea that separates the social from the technical.

Hence, the answer is engineering students today are taught to focus on objective technical outcomes, independent of the social dimensions of their work.

The passage gives several examples of harm in medicine caused by ignoring social dimensions. Each statement must be matched to them.

Neglect of research for diseases afflicting marginalised communities: the passage says better diagnostics and treatment for diseases like endometriosis “have not been built because they were not deemed important”. This is an example given.

Exclusion of groups from clinical trials leading to wrong dosages: most FDA-approved drugs “are incorrectly dosed for people assigned female at birth” because “they have been inadequately represented in clinical trials”. This is an example given.

Calibration of devices based on past racial biases: spirometers “still have correction factors” derived from eugenicist research. This is an example given.

Incorrect assignment of people as female at birth: the passage says the drugs are incorrectly dosed for people assigned female at birth; the word “incorrectly” refers to the dosing, not to the assignment of sex. The passage makes no claim that people were wrongly assigned at birth, so this is not one of its examples.

Hence, the answer is incorrect assignment of people as female at birth which has resulted in faulty drug interventions.

The task is to find the statement that is not offered as a reason why marginalised people are discriminated against in technology.

“But those technical ideals … for the most privileged segments of society.” This says the supposedly neutral technical ideals actually serve the privileged, which explains the neglect of the marginalised. It is a reason.

“Beyond physical failings, subjective beliefs treated as facts … can encode social inequities.” This directly explains how bias gets built into technology. It is a reason.

“These racially based adjustments are derived from research done by eugenicists …” This explains why spirometers assume smaller lung capacity in Black and Asian individuals. It is a reason.

“And we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably …” This concerns medical waste and greenhouse gas emissions, an environmental cost borne by everyone. It says nothing about marginalised groups being treated unfairly, so it is not a reason for their discrimination.

Hence, the answer is “And we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably, which has led to a crisis of medical waste and health care accounting for 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”

The author wants engineering education to make social justice core, attend to public welfare and sustainability, and work with communities. Each statement is checked against these views.

Making environmental sustainability intrinsic: the author laments that “we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably”, which has caused a crisis of medical waste and emissions. The author would approve.

Design based on community needs and local knowledge: Khalid Kadir’s course teaches “place-based knowledge, an understanding of the people, context and history” to design “in collaboration with communities”, which the author cites approvingly.

A more responsible approach than a focus on speed and scale: the author criticises the “best” solution defined by “low cost, speed to build, and ability to scale” and wants engineers to think about “how we do so responsibly”. The author would approve.

Moving towards technical-social dualism: the author defines dualism as the idea that technical and social dimensions are “readily separable and remain distinct”, and the whole passage argues against it. A pedagogy moving towards dualism is the opposite of what the author wants, so the author would not approve of it.

Hence, the answer is moving towards technical-social dualism where social community needs are incorporated in problem-definition and solutions.