Passage - 1

“The history of science is the real history of mankind”. In this striking epigram, a nineteenth-century writer links science with its background. Like most epigrams, its power lies in emphasizing by contrast an aspect of truth which may be easily overlooked. In this case, it is easy to overlook the relations between science and mankind, and to treat the former as some abstract third party, which can sometimes be praised for its beneficial influences, but frequently and conveniently blamed for the horrors of war. Science and mankind cannot be divorced from time to time at men’s convenience. Yet we have seen that, in spite of countless opportunities of improvement, the opening years of the present period of civilization have been dominated by international conflict. Is this the inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere?

Based on the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:
1. The horrors of modern life are the inevitable result of the progress of science.
2. The aspect of truth likely to be overlooked is that science is what man has made it.
Which of the assumptions given above is/are correct?

The correct option is 2 only.

Let's analyze the given assumptions step-by-step based strictly on the passage:

1. Analysis of Assumption 1:
The passage asks a question at the end: "Is this the inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere?" By presenting this as a question, the author shows that the inevitability of the horrors of modern life being a result of scientific progress is not a settled assumption or conclusion. Furthermore, the passage notes that science is "frequently and conveniently blamed for the horrors of war" but emphasizes that "science and mankind cannot be divorced." This indicates that the horrors are not an inevitable result of science itself, but rather depend on how mankind directs and uses it. Therefore, Assumption 1 is incorrect.

2. Analysis of Assumption 2:
The passage states, "In this case, it is easy to overlook the relations between science and mankind, and to treat the former as some abstract third party...". By pointing out that science and mankind are inseparable and that treating science as an independent abstract entity is a mistake, the author implies that science is a product of human activity and history ("The history of science is the real history of mankind"). Thus, the overlooked truth is that science is deeply intertwined with human action and is ultimately what man has made it. Therefore, Assumption 2 is correct.