- Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:06 pm
This question illustrates the need to distinguish Conditional from Causal reasoning very carefully. The last sentence of the passage does involve a conditional. Answer choice (E) is a statement about causation. That already makes me very suspicious of answer choice (E), because conditionality and cause-and-effect are different. In this particular case, I think I can prove why answer choice (E) is wrong by focusing on that last sentence of the passage.
The last sentence claims that Gilman believes that future progress requires the restoration of a certain type of balance. If we're looking at things from Gilman's perspective, then, that balance has to happen before progress can be made. If you look at answer choice (E), it's saying that social evolution will lead to cooperation and nurturance - elements included in that "balance" in the last sentence. But the last sentence said that the balance is required for progress. If you're evaluating answer choice (E) as saying that social evolution = progress, and cooperation + nurturance = restoration of balance, then answer choice (E) is saying that progress produces balance. That actually conflicts with the last sentence! The last sentence entails the balance can't come later than progress, because balance is required for progress; answer choice (E) says that progress makes the balance happen.
Note I'm not saying that every translation (like social evolution = progress) I made above is correct. I'm saying instead that even if you tried to relate the last sentence of the passage and answer choice (E) to each other by making such translations, you will get an answer that claims the opposite of the order of events claimed in the passage. So this tells you that, even if you're trying to twist the answer to fit the passage, it still conflicts with it - proving decisively that it's not correct.