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.
In the view of the neuroscientist, it is entirely permissible to advan
[#permalink]
29 Mar 2026, 23:54
29 Mar 2026, 23:54
Expert Reply
00:00
Question Stats:
62% (00:59) correct
37% (00:44) wrong based on 24 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
In the view of the neuroscientist, it is entirely permissible to advance audacious hypotheses regarding cerebral architecture, even if such theories initially appear ________ ; indeed, as the researcher often asserts, the engine of scientific progress is fueled by perilous supposition.
| Two Answers |
|---|
| A. substantiated |
| B. unwarranted |
| C. provocative | D. groundless | E. premature |
| F. empirical |
- Part of the project: GRE Hard and Tricky Verbal Practice: NEW Questions Daily
- Also replying to the unanswered questions
Re: In the view of the neuroscientist, it is entirely permissible to advan
[#permalink]
01 Apr 2026, 01:11
01 Apr 2026, 01:11
1
In the view of the neuroscientist, it is entirely permissible to advance audacious hypotheses regarding cerebral architecture, even if such theories initially appear ________ ; indeed, as the researcher often asserts, the engine of scientific progress is fueled by perilous supposition.
The neuroscientist states that it is permissible to advance audacious hypothesis and asserts that often scientific progress is fueled by perilous suppositions.
A hypothesis awaits confirmation from experiments and suppositions are assumptions made without proof. And these are further qualified as being audacious and perilous (dangerous).
Thus the correct words for the blank are unwarranted and groundless, as both imply a lack of justification, proof, facts and evidence.
The neuroscientist states that it is permissible to advance audacious hypothesis and asserts that often scientific progress is fueled by perilous suppositions.
A hypothesis awaits confirmation from experiments and suppositions are assumptions made without proof. And these are further qualified as being audacious and perilous (dangerous).
Thus the correct words for the blank are unwarranted and groundless, as both imply a lack of justification, proof, facts and evidence.
Re: In the view of the neuroscientist, it is entirely permissible to advan
[#permalink]
02 Apr 2026, 04:00
02 Apr 2026, 04:00
Expert Reply
1. The Logic Structure:
The sentence employs a supportive/reinforcing structure. The word "even if" suggests a contrast between the "permissibility" of the action and the "negative appearance" of the speculations. However, the second half of the sentence-the independent clause following the semicolon-acts as a justification. It explains why these bold speculations are okay: because science "thrives on risky conjecture."
2. Identifying the Clue:
- The Clue: "Bold speculations" and "risky conjecture."
- The Pivot: "Even if" tells us we are looking for a word that describes speculations that lack immediate proof or seem to lack a solid foundation.
- The Goal: We need two words that mean "lacking a basis in fact or evidence" or "unsupported."
3. Evaluating the Choices:
- A. substantiated: (Opposite) This means proven or supported by evidence.
- B. unwarranted: (Correct) This means not justified or authorized; in this context, lacking a factual basis.
- C. provocative: (Thematic Trap) While bold speculations might be provocative (causing anger or interest), it is not a synonym for the other correct answer.
- D. groundless: (Correct) This means not based on any good reason or evidence. It is a perfect synonym for "unwarranted" in this context.
- E. premature: (Distractor) This means occurring before the proper time. While a speculation might be early, "premature" does not mean "unsupported."
- F. empirical: (Opposite) This refers to information verified by observation or experience rather than theory.
The Synonymous Pair:
The words unwarranted (B) and groundless (D) both describe a theory that lacks a foundation of proof, which perfectly mirrors the idea of "risky conjecture."
The sentence employs a supportive/reinforcing structure. The word "even if" suggests a contrast between the "permissibility" of the action and the "negative appearance" of the speculations. However, the second half of the sentence-the independent clause following the semicolon-acts as a justification. It explains why these bold speculations are okay: because science "thrives on risky conjecture."
2. Identifying the Clue:
- The Clue: "Bold speculations" and "risky conjecture."
- The Pivot: "Even if" tells us we are looking for a word that describes speculations that lack immediate proof or seem to lack a solid foundation.
- The Goal: We need two words that mean "lacking a basis in fact or evidence" or "unsupported."
3. Evaluating the Choices:
- A. substantiated: (Opposite) This means proven or supported by evidence.
- B. unwarranted: (Correct) This means not justified or authorized; in this context, lacking a factual basis.
- C. provocative: (Thematic Trap) While bold speculations might be provocative (causing anger or interest), it is not a synonym for the other correct answer.
- D. groundless: (Correct) This means not based on any good reason or evidence. It is a perfect synonym for "unwarranted" in this context.
- E. premature: (Distractor) This means occurring before the proper time. While a speculation might be early, "premature" does not mean "unsupported."
- F. empirical: (Opposite) This refers to information verified by observation or experience rather than theory.
The Synonymous Pair:
The words unwarranted (B) and groundless (D) both describe a theory that lacks a foundation of proof, which perfectly mirrors the idea of "risky conjecture."
