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?

Which of the following is/are emphatically conveyed by the author of the passage?
1. Without science, mankind could not have continued to exist till today.
2. It is the science that will ultimately determine the destiny of mankind.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.

The correct answer is Neither 1 nor 2.

Let us analyze the passage step-by-step to understand why both statements 1 and 2 are incorrect based on the text:

Analysis of Statement 1: "Without science, mankind could not have continued to exist till today."
The passage mentions that the history of science is linked with the history of mankind, and that science and mankind cannot be divorced. However, it does not state or imply that mankind's physical survival or continued existence until today was dependent solely on science. Therefore, Statement 1 cannot be inferred from the passage.

Analysis of Statement 2: "It is the science that will ultimately determine the destiny of mankind."
The author raises a question at the end: "Is this [international conflict] the inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere?". This shows that the author is questioning the role of science in human history and conflict, rather than emphatically declaring that science determines the ultimate destiny of mankind. The passage links science to human history but does not claim it is the sole arbiter of mankind's future destiny. Thus, Statement 2 is also incorrect.

Since both statements 1 and 2 are not supported or emphatically conveyed by the author, the correct option is indeed "Neither 1 nor 2".