SAT Critical Reading : Making Inferences About the Author or Natural Science Passage Content
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for SAT Critical Reading
All SAT Critical Reading Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #81 : Content Of Natural Science Passages
"Darwinism's Effect on Science" by Matthew Minerd (2014)
For much of the history of human thought, the sciences have studied subjects that seemed to be eternal and unchanging. Even the basic laws of the Nile’s flooding were investigated in the hopes of finding never-altering laws. Similarly, the scientific investigations of the ancient Near East and Greece into the regular laws of the stars ultimately looked for constant patterns. This overall pattern of scientific reasoning has left deep marks on the minds of almost all thinkers and found its apotheosis in modern physics. From the time of the early renaissance to the nineteenth century, physics represented the ultimate expression of scientific investigation for almost all thinkers. Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth. By the nineteenth century, it had appeared that only a few details had to be “cleared up” before all science was basically known.
In many ways, this situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Darwinism. It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well. Darwin’s theories of evolution challenged many aspects of the “static” worldview. Even those who did not believe that a divine being created an unchanging world were shaken by the new vistas opened up to science by his studies. It had been a long-accepted inheritance of Western culture to believe that the species of living organisms were unchanging in nature. Though there might be many different kinds of creatures, the kinds themselves were not believed to change. The thesis of a universal morphing of types shattered this cosmology, replacing the old world-view with a totally new one. Among the things that had to change in light of Darwin’s work was the very view of science held by most people.
Which of the following is implied in this passage about modern physics?
It was singularly new in the history of scientific thought.
It was freed of superstition during the Renaissance.
It was viewed as the science that explained all others.
None of the other answers
It was dogmatically tied to Renaissance ideas.
It was viewed as the science that explained all others.
The best sentence for answering this question is, "Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth." The first paragraph implies that physics appeared to provide the principles needed for explaining all things. It would therefore appear to many to be the "science of sciences." (Indeed, this has been the temptation in real history as well, though that is another, complex story!)
Example Question #2 : Making Inferences And Predictions In Science Passages
"Darwinism's Effect on Science" by Matthew Minerd (2014)
For much of the history of human thought, the sciences have studied subjects that seemed to be eternal and unchanging. Even the basic laws of the Nile’s flooding were investigated in the hopes of finding never-altering laws. Similarly, the scientific investigations of the ancient Near East and Greece into the regular laws of the stars ultimately looked for constant patterns. This overall pattern of scientific reasoning has left deep marks on the minds of almost all thinkers and found its apotheosis in modern physics. From the time of the early renaissance to the nineteenth century, physics represented the ultimate expression of scientific investigation for almost all thinkers. Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth. By the nineteenth century, it had appeared that only a few details had to be “cleared up” before all science was basically known.
In many ways, this situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Darwinism. It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well. Darwin’s theories of evolution challenged many aspects of the “static” worldview. Even those who did not believe that a divine being created an unchanging world were shaken by the new vistas opened up to science by his studies. It had been a long-accepted inheritance of Western culture to believe that the species of living organisms were unchanging in nature. Though there might be many different kinds of creatures, the kinds themselves were not believed to change. The thesis of a universal morphing of types shattered this cosmology, replacing the old world-view with a totally new one. Among the things that had to change in light of Darwin’s work was the very view of science held by most people.
Who was most affected by the changes caused by Darwinism?
Religious believers
Publishers of science texts
None of the other answers
Religious zealots
Science teachers
None of the other answers
There have almost always been controversies about evolution, lasting to our day. Do not bring any of this to your reading of the passage; stick to the text. The general implication in the second paragraph is that everyone was affected by these changes in outlook—believers and non-believers alike. None of the limited groups listed in the answers is sufficient. Therefore, the best choice is "none of the other answers."
Example Question #3 : Extrapolating From The Text In Natural Science Passages
"Darwinism's Effect on Science" by Matthew Minerd (2014)
For much of the history of human thought, the sciences have studied subjects that seemed to be eternal and unchanging. Even the basic laws of the Nile’s flooding were investigated in the hopes of finding never-altering laws. Similarly, the scientific investigations of the ancient Near East and Greece into the regular laws of the stars ultimately looked for constant patterns. This overall pattern of scientific reasoning has left deep marks on the minds of almost all thinkers and found its apotheosis in modern physics. From the time of the early renaissance to the nineteenth century, physics represented the ultimate expression of scientific investigation for almost all thinkers. Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth. By the nineteenth century, it had appeared that only a few details had to be “cleared up” before all science was basically known.
In many ways, this situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Darwinism. It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well. Darwin’s theories of evolution challenged many aspects of the “static” worldview. Even those who did not believe that a divine being created an unchanging world were shaken by the new vistas opened up to science by his studies. It had been a long-accepted inheritance of Western culture to believe that the species of living organisms were unchanging in nature. Though there might be many different kinds of creatures, the kinds themselves were not believed to change. The thesis of a universal morphing of types shattered this cosmology, replacing the old world-view with a totally new one. Among the things that had to change in light of Darwin’s work was the very view of science held by most people.
Given Darwin's statements, which of the following should be expected?
Human beings will likely all die in a massive nuclear war.
Humanity as it is today has reached its fixed state.
Ancient physics was completely worthless.
There were no dogs at one time in the earth's history.
Although we do not train bears as pets today, we may well in years to come.
There were no dogs at one time in the earth's history.
The second paragraph of this selection mostly discusses the fact that Darwin's theories lead to the belief in the changing of creatures over time. This means that some species may never have existed. Also, it implies that new ones might have arisen. Therefore, among the options provided, the best answer is the one that says that perhaps dogs did not at one time exist.
Example Question #12 : Making Inferences About The Author Or Natural Science Passage Content
"Darwinism's Effect on Science" by Matthew Minerd (2014)
For much of the history of human thought, the sciences have studied subjects that seemed to be eternal and unchanging. Even the basic laws of the Nile’s flooding were investigated in the hopes of finding never-altering laws. Similarly, the scientific investigations of the ancient Near East and Greece into the regular laws of the stars ultimately looked for constant patterns. This overall pattern of scientific reasoning has left deep marks on the minds of almost all thinkers and found its apotheosis in modern physics. From the time of the early renaissance to the nineteenth century, physics represented the ultimate expression of scientific investigation for almost all thinkers. Its static laws appeared to be the unchanging principles of all motion and life on earth. By the nineteenth century, it had appeared that only a few details had to be “cleared up” before all science was basically known.
In many ways, this situation changed dramatically with the arrival of Darwinism. It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well. Darwin’s theories of evolution challenged many aspects of the “static” worldview. Even those who did not believe that a divine being created an unchanging world were shaken by the new vistas opened up to science by his studies. It had been a long-accepted inheritance of Western culture to believe that the species of living organisms were unchanging in nature. Though there might be many different kinds of creatures, the kinds themselves were not believed to change. The thesis of a universal morphing of types shattered this cosmology, replacing the old world-view with a totally new one. Among the things that had to change in light of Darwin’s work was the very view of science held by most people.
What could we expect the author to discuss in a paragraph following the last paragraph of this passage?
The limits in Darwin's reasoning
The new textbooks that arose after Darwin
The new training needed for scientists after Darwin
The religious reaction to Darwinism
New theories of physics
New theories of physics
At the beginning of the second paragraph, the passage states, "It would change even more dramatically in early twentieth-century physics as well." In general, this passage is about the general transition from one scientific outlook to another. The details of Darwinism (or of the publication of textbooks as well) is not the main concern. Likely, the author would continue his or her discussion by returning to the theme of twentieth-century physics as well.
Example Question #2 : Making Inferences And Predictions In Science Passages
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Based on what is said in the passage, the author most likely believes that __________.
hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly flower nectar
hummingbirds eat only flower nectar
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects
None of the other answers
hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects
This is a tricky question because in the passage, the author never directly states his opinion about what hummingbirds eat; readers have to infer it based on the evidence he presents. The author begins the passage by stating that while old scientists used to think hummingbirds ate only flower nectar, modern writers think that they eat “largely, and in some cases wholly,” on insects. He then presents evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects, and in discussing the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs, says that scientists sometimes find both insects and honey. For the rest of the paragraph, he provides evidence suggesting that hummingbirds eat insects.
What can we infer from this? Well, we can tell that it’s not likely that the author thinks hummingbirds eat only flower nectar, because he provides evidence supporting the idea that they eat insects. This means that we can also discard the answer choice “hummingbirds eat neither flower nectar nor insects.” It’s quite reasonable to think that the author thinks that “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects” because he mentions that sometimes honey is found along with insects in hummingbirds’ stomachs. So, we need to figure out whether he probably believes that they eat mostly insects or mostly flower nectar. Let’s look at how the author phrases his description of the contents of hummingbirds’ stomachs: “in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” So, if “in almost every instance” the hummingbird stomachs examined were “full of insects,” but “sometimes, but not generally” honey was also found, the correct answer must be “hummingbirds eat a mixture of flower nectar and insects, but mostly insects.”
Example Question #1 : Extrapolating From The Text In Natural Science Passages
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Which of the following inferences does the passage expect its readers to make?
Fly-catchers are a type of insect.
The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.
If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.
Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.
If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.
Let’s consider each of the answer choices to identify the correct one.
“The author is the first scientist to ever have investigated what hummingbirds eat.” - This cannot be true, because the author begins the passage by saying “The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects.” He also cites numerous other scientists’ opinions throughout the passage, so he can’t be the first person to have investigated what hummingbirds eat.
“Fly-catchers are a type of insect.” - The passage mentions fly-catchers in the following sentence: “Many [hummingbirds] in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig.” This is a tricky answer choice in that it’s easy to misread the sentence and think that “just like flycatchers” refers to “other small insects” when in fact it refers to the act of “catching.” The sentence is saying that hummingbirds catch insects in the same manner as fly-catchers, not that fly-catchers are a type of insect. Plus, we are being asked to identify an inference readers are expected to make, and if this sentence did mean that fly-catchers were insects, it would be overtly telling us this, and there would be nothing we’d have to infer.
“Scientists rarely learn about hummingbirds by dissecting them.” - This answer choice is proven wrong by the following sentence: “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.”
“If a hummingbird eats gnats, it will not eat honey.” - Given that the questions of whether hummingbirds eat insects or honey and in what proportions is the topic of the passage, it may be easy to choose this answer choice because it seems like the one closest to the passage’s main idea; however, nothing in the passage supports this assertion.
“If a hummingbird consumes flower nectar, this nectar will turn into the honey that can be found in its stomach.” - This is the correct answer! The author initially states that “All the early writers down to Buffon believed that [hummingbirds] lived solely on the nectar of flowers”; however, he later states that “Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey.” The author does not address the idea that flower nectar and honey could be different substances, and instead expects the reader to treat these as one source of food.
Example Question #2 : Extrapolating From The Text In Natural Science Passages
Adapted from “Humming-Birds: As Illustrating the Luxuriance of Tropical Nature” in Tropical Nature, and Other Essays by Alfred Russel Wallace (1878)
The food of hummingbirds has been a matter of much controversy. All the early writers down to Buffon believed that they lived solely on the nectar of flowers, but since that time, every close observer of their habits maintains that they feed largely, and in some cases wholly, on insects. Azara observed them on the La Plata in winter taking insects out of the webs of spiders at a time and place where there were no flowers. Bullock, in Mexico, declares that he saw them catch small butterflies, and that he found many kinds of insects in their stomachs. Waterton made a similar statement. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens have since been dissected by collecting naturalists, and in almost every instance their stomachs have been found full of insects, sometimes, but not generally, mixed with a proportion of honey. Many of them in fact may be seen catching gnats and other small insects just like fly-catchers, sitting on a dead twig over water, darting off for a time in the air, and then returning to the twig. Others come out just at dusk, and remain on the wing, now stationary, now darting about with the greatest rapidity, imitating in a limited space the evolutions of the goatsuckers, and evidently for the same end and purpose. Mr. Gosse also remarks, ” All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail. That the object of these quick turns is the capture of insects, I am sure, having watched one thus engaged pretty close to me.”
Based on the way the term is used in passage, what is “the Polytmus”?
A species of flower that often attracts hummingbirds
A scientific term for a fledgling hummingbird that cannot yet fly
A type of hummingbird with particularly bright coloring
A type of carnivorous mammal that eats hummingbirds
A type of hummingbird with a long tail
A type of hummingbird with a long tail
Let’s look at the spot in the passage where “the Polytmus” is mentioned:
“Mr. Gosse also remarks, ‘All the hummingbirds have more or less the habit, when in flight, of pausing in the air and throwing the body and tail into rapid and odd contortions. This is most observable in the Polytmus, from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail.’”
From this context, we can tell that the Polytmus isn’t a carnivorous hummingbird-eating mammal, or a species of flower: it is a hummingbird. It is mentioned in the context of flying, so it can’t refer to a fledgling hummingbird that can’t yet fly. So, is it mentioning a type of hummingbird with particularly bright coloring, or one with a long tail? Mr. Gosse mentions the Polytmus in particular because observers can easily see it contort in midair “from the effect that such motions have on the long feathers of the tail.” So, the Polytmus must be “a type of hummingbird with a long tail.”
Example Question #22 : Drawing Inferences From Natural Science Passages
Adapted from An Introduction to Astronomy by Forest Ray Moulton (1916 ed.)
It is doubtful if any important scientific idea ever sprang suddenly into the mind of a single man. The great intellectual movements in the world have had long periods of preparation, and often many men were groping for the same truth, without exactly seizing it, before it was fully comprehended.
The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws. Consequently, science was impossible until the truth of this principle was perceived, at least as applied to a limited part of nature.
The phenomena of ordinary observation, as, for example, the weather, depend on such a multitude of factors that it was not easy for men in their primitive state to discover that they occur in harmony with fixed laws. This was the age of superstition, when nature was supposed to be controlled by a great number of capricious gods whose favor could be won by childish ceremonies. Enormous experience was required to dispel such errors and to convince men that the universe is one vast organization whose changes take place in conformity with laws which they can in no way alter.
The actual dawn of science was in prehistoric times, probably in the civilizations that flourished in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. In the very earliest records of these people that have come down to modern times it is found that they were acquainted with many astronomical phenomena and had coherent ideas with respect to the motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. It is perfectly clear from their writings that it was from their observations of the heavenly bodies that they first obtained the idea that the universe is not a chaos. Day and night were seen to succeed each other regularly, the moon was found to pass through its phases systematically, the seasons followed one another in order, and in fact the more conspicuous celestial phenomena were observed to occur in an orderly sequence. It is to the glory of astronomy that it first led men to the conclusion that law reigns in the universe.
Based on the author’s words, what could we say about the discoveries of Newton or Galileo, whom many consider to be geniuses far greater than most other scientists in history?
None of the other answers
Their work came forth uniquely and suddenly, like Athena from the brow of Zeus.
Their work must be seen in a broader context of scientific history.
Their work was revolutionary, overturning the results of almost every previous finding.
They were the first to notice the orderliness of celestial motion.
Their work must be seen in a broader context of scientific history.
The very topic sentence of the first paragraph is all that is needed to answer this question correctly. Almost all scientific advances have been prepared by the work of many hands, and while some one person might have undertaken pivotal experiments, it should not be believe to have sprung directly from that one person alone. Hence, even though Galileo, Newton, and others are quite unique in their influence, they are not the sole sources of scientific thought.
Example Question #1 : Making Inferences In Narrative Science Passages
Adapted from An Introduction to Astronomy by Forest Ray Moulton (1916 ed.)
It is doubtful if any important scientific idea ever sprang suddenly into the mind of a single man. The great intellectual movements in the world have had long periods of preparation, and often many men were groping for the same truth, without exactly seizing it, before it was fully comprehended.
The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws. Consequently, science was impossible until the truth of this principle was perceived, at least as applied to a limited part of nature.
The phenomena of ordinary observation, as, for example, the weather, depend on such a multitude of factors that it was not easy for men in their primitive state to discover that they occur in harmony with fixed laws. This was the age of superstition, when nature was supposed to be controlled by a great number of capricious gods whose favor could be won by childish ceremonies. Enormous experience was required to dispel such errors and to convince men that the universe is one vast organization whose changes take place in conformity with laws which they can in no way alter.
The actual dawn of science was in prehistoric times, probably in the civilizations that flourished in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. In the very earliest records of these people that have come down to modern times it is found that they were acquainted with many astronomical phenomena and had coherent ideas with respect to the motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. It is perfectly clear from their writings that it was from their observations of the heavenly bodies that they first obtained the idea that the universe is not a chaos. Day and night were seen to succeed each other regularly, the moon was found to pass through its phases systematically, the seasons followed one another in order, and in fact the more conspicuous celestial phenomena were observed to occur in an orderly sequence. It is to the glory of astronomy that it first led men to the conclusion that law reigns in the universe.
Which of the following would be compatible with the underlined sentence?
None of the other answers
From the chaos of many facts, science arises when one great mind surveys the details in a new manner.
Without the Egyptians, science would likely have never developed.
We might mark the start of scientific history with the first time that two cavemen realized that they could always make fire by means of a certain process of rubbing sticks.
The chaos found in most ancient legends precluded any development of scientific knowledge.
We might mark the start of scientific history with the first time that two cavemen realized that they could always make fire by means of a certain process of rubbing sticks.
"The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws."
The underlined sentence states that the foundation of science is the realization that there is an orderliness in the world. While we cannot say for certain how this dawned on the human race (and then was handed down), a good example of such a realization would be found in the case of cavemen realizing that fire does indeed arise from a regular ordering of causes. Seeing this regularity, they would have the startings of scientific knowledge.
Example Question #31 : Textual Relationships In Science Passages
Adapted from An Introduction to Astronomy by Forest Ray Moulton (1916 ed.)
It is doubtful if any important scientific idea ever sprang suddenly into the mind of a single man. The great intellectual movements in the world have had long periods of preparation, and often many men were groping for the same truth, without exactly seizing it, before it was fully comprehended.
The foundation on which all science rests is the principle that the universe is orderly, and that all phenomena succeed one another in harmony with invariable laws. Consequently, science was impossible until the truth of this principle was perceived, at least as applied to a limited part of nature.
The phenomena of ordinary observation, as, for example, the weather, depend on such a multitude of factors that it was not easy for men in their primitive state to discover that they occur in harmony with fixed laws. This was the age of superstition, when nature was supposed to be controlled by a great number of capricious gods whose favor could be won by childish ceremonies. Enormous experience was required to dispel such errors and to convince men that the universe is one vast organization whose changes take place in conformity with laws which they can in no way alter.
The actual dawn of science was in prehistoric times, probably in the civilizations that flourished in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates. In the very earliest records of these people that have come down to modern times it is found that they were acquainted with many astronomical phenomena and had coherent ideas with respect to the motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. It is perfectly clear from their writings that it was from their observations of the heavenly bodies that they first obtained the idea that the universe is not a chaos. Day and night were seen to succeed each other regularly, the moon was found to pass through its phases systematically, the seasons followed one another in order, and in fact the more conspicuous celestial phenomena were observed to occur in an orderly sequence. It is to the glory of astronomy that it first led men to the conclusion that law reigns in the universe.
John Stuart Mill once wrote an essay on "Tideology" to discuss the social sciences, which he compared to knowledge of tides, about which he noted the concurrence of many different causes. Based on this passage, what do you think this means about the social sciences?
It is difficult to find regularity in their data.
None of the other answers
Their emergence was crucial to the beginning of science.
They are well developed, given the many other developments in science.
They have always been around, for the tides have intrigued human persons from time immemorial.
It is difficult to find regularity in their data.
In this passage, the author discusses the fact that it is very difficult to have science when there is a concurrence of many factors that are related to each other only with difficulty. If Mill was claiming that this was the case for the social sciences, it is safe to assume (based on our passage's reasoning, at least) that such sciences discover regularity only with great difficulty.
All SAT Critical Reading Resources
