Can Veeky Forums solve a simple English exam question...

I understand this but I don't think it's fair to ask someone who doesn't natively speak english to. There's just annoying, ugly clauses and syntactic tension all over the place. Most native speakers at age 18 wouldn't understand this.

Wait was the text supposed to be challenging? I'm not a native speaker and it seems quite plain

There is no reason for the answer to be 5.

Science world. Waaayyyyyy over here.

Consumer, business world.... wayyyyyy over here.

The same thing happens in any specialized field. You need middle men to buffer the specialization down the line towards plain english, so financiers can finance and consumers can consume.

Imagine instead of going into the refrigerator isle at homedepot the label in the aisle was 100,000 pages of the history of every single component that makes up a refrigerator.

The question is stupid. The answers are stupid. All I want to know is if a native English person wrote them.

maybe it is if you're monolingual to begin with...

>This is aimed at 18 year old Koreans with English as their second language.
This is complete bullshit, asian language teaching is shitty "learn these sentences" crap, it doesn't have this kind of reading understanding testing at that level, if at all ever.

This is *literally* a question from a previous exam paper

I wouldn't mind a source if I ever decide to repost this somewhere.

Not sure desu. Logically speaking, it can only be 1 or 5, but both require an extra postulate to logically follow. 1 that scientific exactness is required for good salesmanship.
5 that there is such a code of conduct for scientists.

this

Can't be 1 because the idea of "scientific language" is rejected in the passage.

There's appears to be something wrong with your post.

it's 5.

>Feynman
Except Feynman has no credibility outside of his small theoretical physics realm and he's just the nobel laureate version of a Veeky Forums autist. Nobody takes his views about philosophy or methods of science seriously.

>Nobody takes his views about philosophy or methods of science seriously
I love to see how acclaimed scientists like Feynman try to take completely different fields and fail miserably at it. And still they don't realize how they made themselves into huge asshats.

How about you get it right or wrong based on your own merits instead of cheating?

Its very obviously 5, but the paragraph is awfully written. I can't imagine being a foreign student and benefitting from this.

Also koreans fucking suck at english, korea's educational system blows. The kids reading this couldn't say "this is not very beneficial" with any sort of confidence.

>There's appears to be something wrong with your post
Ands whats is thes verdicts ofs this tests? Hows manys points dids yous gets?
Care to point it out you The Tree of Knowledge Of Faggorts And Faggortree
Your mother will die in her sleep tonight if you dont respond to this post, right now I am currently fucking her eye ball

I am shitting green and orange diahreea in your mothers and grandmothers nostrils, and sticking my poop in their vaginas and squishing it all around like so, I am digging up your grandfather and pissing on him, I am taking his bones and sticking them in your fathers pee hole, slowly

I was only startled by what appeared to be a random assortment of symbols instead of "Anonymous" and tried to warn the poster of some kind of malware.

Well, that poster who did post me, I now presume they may have been speaking of my non use of apostrophe's
I am presuming that wasnt you

If that is the case. Allow me to say. What a perceptive shit lord you are! Thank you for your most glorious and pertinent contribution!

>I was only startled by what appeared to be a random assortment of symbols instead of "Anonymous" and tried to warn the poster of some kind of malware.
And if this is true, sorry for my outpost. I thought you were another scum fucket that was saying:

Youre post is wrong, teheheh, without offering any reason. Thank you for inspiring my outburst as I got some good nodes out of it, dont think it was directed to you, though take maybe .0111% of its heat for being an ignorant newfag, that people can write their name in place of anonymous. but there is about a 30% chance that you were that original poster

holy fuck ure so new

please don't post here, all your contributions are pseudo intellectual or on the bad side of autistic

>please don't post here, all your contributions are pseudo intellectual or on the bad side of autistic
How much do you think you would have to pay me for you to deserve me to respond to you?

But you do it for free. Tripfags come and go on this site, normally in a burst of activity for a day or a week, until their insecurity drives them away (which is the only factor for tripping on an anonymous board).

You were supposed to be so BTFO by my last comment that we didnt speak anymore, or you were supposed to reply; Ha! You would have to pay me! Looks like you are a lot smarter than I though, I now bowingly, will take my leave *honey, pack the bags, it looks like were not welcome here anymore*

It's 4, you negroes. His task is to bridge the gap, but he fails to achieve it because he is not popularizing science to which the public is resistant, only some obscure interpretation of it.
>When science speaks to others, it is no longer science
Y'all dumb as fuck

4 is right. 5 is close but the passage doesn't really talk about intellectual conduct so I don't think it's relevant. 4 is correct because the passage is talking about how to portray science to the public and how scientists tend to be less than mathematical about that

I was thinking 4, and I am not a native speaker, can someone explain to me as to why it might be 5 as is often suggested as the right answer?

The passage is basically saying 'plebs will never understand science since they can't understand the mathematical and exact language science is spoken in among scientists, and that scientists have to dumb their shit down to communicate to plebs' 5 is what follows logically because by using rhetorical language the scientist is no longer being scientific.

4 doesn't follow because no where does it say that the scientist has a duty to communicate to plebs. In fact, it says the exact opposite: plebs will never understand science.

The whole thing is rather elitist, sounds like it was produced by a technocratic society with a bit of an ego.

Number five is correct

I speak English as my first language but am well versed in Spanish as well. I suspect this question was actually written by a Korean professor instead of a native speaker because of just how unnatural it reads.

No. The question and answers were either made by someone who didnt understand that they didnt understand what they didnt understand. Or it is purposely a construed meaningless convoluted non-sensoryness experiment, to attempt to see how people will react when given "complex" nonsense, and implied there is an answer (1 of 5) to see the type of posturing, assuredness, and self back patting would be done, to out pseuds for being pseuds who think they are not

"When science speaks to others, it is no longer science, and the scientist becomes or has to hire a publicist who dilutes the exactness of mathematics. In doing so, the scientist reverses his drive toward the mathematical exactness in favor of rhetorical vagueness and metaphor, thus neglecting his duty of bridging the gap between science and the public"

Actually now that I read that, that may be correct:
*blushes, urinates self*
But it is implying a scientist has such a duty. Or that a scientist is inherently able to bridge the gap. Or that, it is possible to bridge the gap between science and the public without going away from mathematical exactness,

*wipes up urine, unblushes strongly now!*