S1: Undoubtedly, science has done wonders.
S6: Thus, science, which was once considered a destructive power only in war, must be recognized as one also in its apparently constructive activities during peace.
P: But in giving such an answer, our attention must not be taken up entirely by the danger from nuclear weapons and chemical warfare.
Q: The honest answer has to be, Not always".
R: But has it stopped with wonders which are beneficial to mankind?
S: There is far greater real danger from the damage to the environment arising from the so-called peaceful uses of science.

The proper sequence should be:

RQPS

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

SPQR

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

SRPQ

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

PQRS

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is A RQPS
The first statement in the sequence should be the one that best connects with S1. It should be a continuation or extension of S1.
R is first in the sequence: S1 claims that science has undoubtedly done wonders. R questions S1's claim. It asks if it has stopped with wonders which are beneficial to mankind.
R is followed by Q: Q answers R's question. It says that the honest answer is, not always.
Q is followed by P: P elaborates on the answer given by Q. It says that in giving such an answer, our attention must not be taken up by danger from nuclear weapons and chemical warfare.
P is followed by S: S explains P's point. It says that there is far more danger from the damage caused to the environment arising from the so-called peaceful uses of science. S6 provides a conclusion based on the above points.
Thus, the correct sequence is R Q P S. Hence, A is the correct option.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. S1: The advancement of science is not a secret or a mysterious process.
S6: What is he to think but to marvel at the skill of science, and to fear its power?
P: No one tells the layman about the years of experiment and failure.
Q: If it sometimes seems so, that is just because the day-to-day work of science is so unspectacular.
R: How is he to know what has not been done, or to guess the labour of what has?
S: You hear nothing from the research worker for years, and then, suddenly, there is the result in the headlines; penicillin or the jet engine or nuclear fusion.
The proper sequence should be:

Q. S1: Science has given us powers fit for the gods.
S6: And we should remember that they are very stern masters.
P: For example, we do not know how to manage our machines.
Q: Yet we use them like small children.
R: But in practice, they have become man's masters.
S: Machines were made to be man's servants.
The proper sequence should be:

It would be ungrateful not to recognize how immense the boons are which science has given to mankind. It has brought within reach, the benefits and advantages which only a short time ago were the privilege of the few. It has shown how malnutrition, hunger and disease can be overcome. Fields of knowledge, experience and recreation open in the past only to a few have been thrown open to millions.

A. Man is ungrateful in not recognising the blessings that science has showered on him as these include freedom from malnutrition, hunger and diseases. All the people are now able to enjoy the benefits of knowledge, experience and recreation.
B. Science has improved man's life by bringing within his reach the innumerable benefits that were the privilege of a select few.
C. No man can fail to thank science as it has thrown open knowledge, experience, and recreation to millions of people. It has eradicated malnutrition, hunger and diseases to be replaced with benefits and privileges.
D. We cannot count all the blessings that science has bestowed on man. There are many benefits and advantages like malnutrition, hunger and diseases. Knowledge recreation and experiences are now open to all.

___

After the two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, military analysts were quick to proclaim a “nuclear revolution”. These new weapons- enhanced many-fold by hydrogen bombs- caused such horrendous destruction that it was inconceivable they could actually be used as instruments of warfare. Their sole purpose, aside from serving as indicators of prestige, is deterrence- the prevention of war. Nuclear technology was making was obsolete. Should not this development constitute a fifth revolution in the use of armed force in international politics? The contemporary concern with nuclear proliferation indicates that, in both popular and officials minds, nuclear weapons constitute a continuity of threats to international peace and security, not a break from the past. Whereas the leaders of both Cold War blocs and their allies insisted that their possession of nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence was fully rational and a contribution to international peace and security, they perceived the expansion of nuclear capabilities to other states as a serious threat. The leaders of new states or "rogue" states could not be assumed to possess the rationality and moderation of leaders in Moscow, Paris, London or Washington. For some unexplained reason, the prudence learned by the nuclear great powers cannot be trusted to be learned by others. This view has prevailed despite evidence that, for example, the crisis between India and Pakistan in 2002 might well have resulted in war had their governments not feared that military necessity would demand the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is a serious problem, to be sure, but it must be differentiated. It makes a considerable difference whether additional aspirants to the nuclear club are well-established states such as India or Japan or non-state-based terrorist groups. Yet the conventional wisdom underlying the view of proliferation as a profound and continuing threat is that such weapons have not at all altered the calculus of war and that therefore the greater the number of states possessing these weapons, the greater the probability they will be used. There are serious problems with this view, but there are more important reasons why nuclear weapons have not produced a revolution in the use of force. The record clearly indicates that for most crises, wars and armed interventions since 1945 nuclear weapons have been irrelevant. The possession of nuclear weapons undoubtedly moderate behaviour in a few crises, such as Berlin in 1961, Cuba in 1962 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but, for the hundreds of other instances where force was used, they did not come into play in any meaningful sense. War has not become obsolete, states still possess armed forces primarily for "national security" and many states have launched those armed forces against then neighbours and more distant societies. Nuclear weapons may complicate defence decision-making, but by themselves they have not brought forth a revolution as defined earlier.

From the passage, it can be inferred that:

It would be ungrateful not to recognize how immense the boons are which science has given to mankind. It has brought within reach, the benefits and advantages which only a short time ago were the privilege of the few. It has shown how malnutrition, hunger and disease can beovercome. Fields of knowledge, experience and recreation open in the past only to a few have been thrown open to millions

B. Science has improved man's life by bringing within his reach the innumerable benefits that were the privilege of a select few.

C. No man can fail to thank science as it has thrown open knowledge, experience, and recreation to millions of people. It has eradicated malnutrition, hunger and diseases to be replaced with benefits and privileges.

D. We cannot count all the blessings that science has bestowed on man. There are many benefits and advantages like malnutrition, hunger and diseases. Knowledge recreation and experiences are now open to all

Join BYJU'S Learning Program