GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 28Live Online Class with Top GRE Expert Mike Butville
08:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GRE course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP GRE OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon/Wed Sept. 28, 2026 - Dec. 9, 2026, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
The philosopher Simone Weil possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of
[#permalink]
30 Jun 2026, 14:46
30 Jun 2026, 14:46
Expert Reply
2
Bookmarks
00:00
Question Stats:
16% (00:48) correct
83% (01:29) wrong based on 18 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
The philosopher Simone Weil possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of the (i) ________ of scientific reasoning. Precisely because its conclusions were always provisional, always open to revision by the next experiment, the entire sphere of ethical inquiry (ii) ______ its purview; for Weil, moral truths demanded an absoluteness that no amount of empirical data could ever supply.
| Blank (i) | Blank (ii) |
|---|---|
| A. boundaries | D. transcended |
| B. capriciousness | E. fell within |
| C. contingency | F. was excluded from |
- Part of the project: GRE Hard and Tricky Verbal Practice: NEW Questions Daily
- Also replying to the unanswered questions
- The Definitive GRE Vocabulary Masterclass - 3,000 Words List
- GRE Beginner: The Definitive Guide
Re: The philosopher Simone Weil possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of
[#permalink]
04 Jul 2026, 08:32
04 Jul 2026, 08:32
Expert Reply
Overall meaning:
Weil understood something specific about scientific reasoning: its conclusions are "always provisional, always open to revision." Because of this, ethical inquiry - which demands absolute, non-revisable truths - is outside the reach of science. Science can't provide the absoluteness ethics requires.
Blank (i):
"She possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of the (i) ______ of scientific reasoning."
What follows defines this: conclusions are "always provisional, always open to revision." This describes the limits of science - where it applies and where it doesn't.
- A. boundaries $=$ limits, scope. Fits perfectly - she understood where science stops.
- B. capriciousness = unpredictability, whimsicality. Too negative; "provisional" and "open to revision" don't mean capricious.
- C. contingency = the state of being dependent on conditions, not necessary or absolute. This also fits - scientific truths are contingent, not absolute. But "grasp of the contingency of scientific reasoning" is less natural than "boundaries," and blank
(ii) will help confirm.
Blank (ii):
"the entire sphere of ethical inquiry (ii) _______ its purview"
She grasped the boundaries of science. Since ethics demands absoluteness, and science is always provisional, ethics falls outside science's scope.
- D. transcended = went beyond. If ethics transcends science's purview, it's outside it. But the subject is "ethical inquiry," so "transcended its purview" would mean ethics surpassed the scope of science - grammatically awkward. Ethics transcended science's purview? Yes, that works: ethics lies beyond what science can address.
- E. fell within = was inside. Opposite - if ethics demands absolutes and science is provisional, ethics is not within science's scope.
- F. was excluded from = was left out of. Would mean ethics was excluded from science's purview. Fits the meaning perfectly.
Choosing the best pairing:
- A (boundaries) + F (was excluded from): She grasped the boundaries of science; ethics was excluded from its purview. Clean, logical.
- C (contingency) + D (transcended): She grasped the contingency of science; ethics transcended its purview. Also works logically, but "grasp of the contingency" is slightly awkward, and "transcended" is a bit grand for the context.
- A (boundaries) + D (transcended): She grasped the boundaries of science; ethics transcended its purview. Also works.
The tightest, most natural reading: she understood the boundaries of science, and ethics was excluded from its scope.
Weil understood something specific about scientific reasoning: its conclusions are "always provisional, always open to revision." Because of this, ethical inquiry - which demands absolute, non-revisable truths - is outside the reach of science. Science can't provide the absoluteness ethics requires.
Blank (i):
"She possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of the (i) ______ of scientific reasoning."
What follows defines this: conclusions are "always provisional, always open to revision." This describes the limits of science - where it applies and where it doesn't.
- A. boundaries $=$ limits, scope. Fits perfectly - she understood where science stops.
- B. capriciousness = unpredictability, whimsicality. Too negative; "provisional" and "open to revision" don't mean capricious.
- C. contingency = the state of being dependent on conditions, not necessary or absolute. This also fits - scientific truths are contingent, not absolute. But "grasp of the contingency of scientific reasoning" is less natural than "boundaries," and blank
(ii) will help confirm.
Blank (ii):
"the entire sphere of ethical inquiry (ii) _______ its purview"
She grasped the boundaries of science. Since ethics demands absoluteness, and science is always provisional, ethics falls outside science's scope.
- D. transcended = went beyond. If ethics transcends science's purview, it's outside it. But the subject is "ethical inquiry," so "transcended its purview" would mean ethics surpassed the scope of science - grammatically awkward. Ethics transcended science's purview? Yes, that works: ethics lies beyond what science can address.
- E. fell within = was inside. Opposite - if ethics demands absolutes and science is provisional, ethics is not within science's scope.
- F. was excluded from = was left out of. Would mean ethics was excluded from science's purview. Fits the meaning perfectly.
Choosing the best pairing:
- A (boundaries) + F (was excluded from): She grasped the boundaries of science; ethics was excluded from its purview. Clean, logical.
- C (contingency) + D (transcended): She grasped the contingency of science; ethics transcended its purview. Also works logically, but "grasp of the contingency" is slightly awkward, and "transcended" is a bit grand for the context.
- A (boundaries) + D (transcended): She grasped the boundaries of science; ethics transcended its purview. Also works.
The tightest, most natural reading: she understood the boundaries of science, and ethics was excluded from its scope.
Re: The philosopher Simone Weil possessed an uncommonly precise grasp of
[#permalink]
04 Jul 2026, 12:37
04 Jul 2026, 12:37
What exactly is the difference between D and F here? From my understanding it just changes the tone of the sentence, D indicates that she believes ethics is somehow above science whereas F indicates that ethics is disjoint but on the same level as science.
