Re: Some have argued that naming scientific discoveries after the people
[#permalink]
30 Jan 2024, 21:26
The answers are A and F.
The choices that best fit the context are "hamper" (A) and "impede" (F). These words capture the notion that naming conventions can obstruct or hinder scientific progress by lacking clarity and not being related to the underlying principles.
A. Hamper: Hamper means to hinder or obstruct the progress or development of something. In the context of naming scientific discoveries, if the nomenclature lacks clarity and doesn't relate to the underlying principles, it can impede or slow down scientific progress.
B. Abet: Abet means to assist or support. If scientific discoveries are named in a way that assists or supports scientific progress, it would be counterintuitive to the argument presented in the sentence. Therefore, "abet" is not the appropriate choice here.
C. Instigate: Instigate means to initiate or provoke. Naming scientific discoveries after individuals might not necessarily initiate or provoke scientific progress. The sentence suggests a negative impact on clarity, so "instigate" is not the suitable choice.
D. Obscure: Obscure means to conceal or make unclear. Given the context, "obscure" is not relevant.
E. Nullify: Nullify means to make something null or void, rendering it ineffective. While naming conventions might impact clarity, "nullify" suggests a complete negation, which might be too strong for the context. The argument is more about hindering or impeding progress rather than rendering it completely ineffective.
F. Impede: Impede means to obstruct or hinder progress. This word aligns closely with the idea that naming scientific discoveries in a way that lacks clarity can hinder or impede scientific progress.