Social science disciplines were in existence in an amorphous form until the colonial period when they were intuitionalized. In varying degrees, they were intended to further the colonial interest. In the time of globalization and the economic rise of postcolonial countries like India, conventional ways of knowledge production have become obsolete. Which of the following can be logically inferred from the above statements? i) Social science disciplines have become obsolete. ii) Social science disciplines had a pre – colonial origin iii) Social science disciplines always promote colonialism iv) Social science must maintain disciplinary boundaries.
ii only
Social Science Disciplines: Understanding Inferences
The question asks us to identify which statements can be logically inferred from the provided passage about social science disciplines. To do this, we need to carefully read each part of the passage and compare it with the given statements.
Understanding the Social Science Passage
Let's break down the key points mentioned in the passage:
- Pre-Colonial Existence: The passage states, "Social science disciplines were in existence in an amorphous form until the colonial period when they were intuitionalized." This means that before the colonial period, these disciplines existed, but not in a structured or formal way. They became formalized or "institutionalized" during the colonial era.
- Colonial Influence: It further mentions, "In varying degrees, they were intended to further the colonial interest." This indicates that during the colonial period, a purpose of these institutionalized social sciences was to serve colonial interests.
- Modern Context: The passage concludes by saying, "In the time of globalization and the economic rise of postcolonial countries like India, conventional ways of knowledge production have become obsolete." This points to a change in the relevance of traditional methods of creating knowledge in the current globalized world.
Inference Analysis of Statements
Now, let's analyze each statement based on the information provided in the passage:
- Statement i) Social science disciplines have become obsolete.
- The passage states that "conventional ways of knowledge production have become obsolete," not the social science disciplines themselves. Disciplines might adapt new ways of knowledge production. Therefore, we cannot infer that social science disciplines themselves are obsolete.
- Statement ii) Social science disciplines had a pre – colonial origin.
- The passage explicitly says, "Social science disciplines were in existence in an amorphous form until the colonial period." This directly implies that they existed before the colonial period, even if not in their institutionalized form. Thus, they had a pre-colonial origin. This statement can be logically inferred.
- Statement iii) Social science disciplines always promote colonialism.
- The passage states that they "were intended to further the colonial interest" during the colonial period. It does not say they "always" promote colonialism. The word "always" suggests a continuous and universal promotion, which is not supported by the text, especially considering their amorphous pre-colonial existence and the current postcolonial context. This statement cannot be logically inferred.
- Statement iv) Social science must maintain disciplinary boundaries.
- The passage does not provide any information or discussion about disciplinary boundaries of social science. Therefore, no inference can be made regarding this statement.
Key Inferences Summary
| Statement | Can be Inferred? | Reasoning from Passage |
|---|---|---|
| i) Social science disciplines have become obsolete. | No | Only "conventional ways of knowledge production" are stated as obsolete, not the disciplines themselves. |
| ii) Social science disciplines had a pre – colonial origin. | Yes | "In existence in an amorphous form until the colonial period" implies existence before colonialism. |
| iii) Social science disciplines always promote colonialism. | No | They "were intended to further the colonial interest" during the colonial period, not "always." |
| iv) Social science must maintain disciplinary boundaries. | No | The passage provides no information on disciplinary boundaries. |
Conclusion
Based on the detailed analysis, only statement (ii) can be logically inferred from the provided passage. The passage clearly indicates that social science disciplines existed in some form before the colonial period.
Important Questions from Instructions
Ms X will be in Bagdogra from 01/05/2014 to 20/05/2014 and from 22/05/2014 to 31/05/2014. On the morning of 21/05/2014, she will reach Kochi via Mumbai Which one of the statements below is logically valid and can be inferred from the above sentences?
All people in a certain are either ‘Knights’ or ‘Knaves’ and each person knows every other person’s identity. Knights NEVER lie, and knaves ALWAYS lie.
P says “Both of us are knights”, Q says “None of us are knaves”.
Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the above?Here, throughout the early 1820s, Stuart continued to fight his losing battle to allow his sepoys to wear their caste-marks and their own choice of facial hair on parade, being again reprimanded by the commander-in-chief. His retort that ‘A stronger instance than this of European prejudice with relation to this country has never come under my observations’ had no effect on his superiors.” According to this paragraph, which of the statements below is most accurate?
In a world filled with uncertainty, he was glad to have many good friends. He had always assisted them in times of need and was confident that they would reciprocate. However, the events of the last week proved him wrong. Which of the following inference(s) is/are logically valid and can be inferred from the above passage?
(i) His friends were always asking him to help them.
(ii) He felt that when in need of help, his friends would let him down.
(iii) He was sure that his friends would help him when in need.
(iv) His friends did not help him last week.Fact: If it rains, then the field is wet.
Read the following statements:
(i) It rains
(ii) The field is not wet
(iii) The field is wet
(iv) It did not rain
Which one of the options given below is NOT logically possible, based on the given fact?
