Correct Option (4)
The passage strongly conveys the intricate and inseparable relationship between science and mankind, asserting that they "cannot be divorced from time to time at men’s convenience." However, it does not emphatically state that mankind's continued existence is solely dependent on science (Statement 1). Similarly, the author questions whether international conflict is an "inevitable result of the progress of science or does the fault lie elsewhere," rather than definitively claiming that science will "ultimately determine the destiny of mankind" (Statement 2). The passage emphasizes the connection and the responsibility associated with scientific progress, but avoids making absolute claims about survival or ultimate destiny. Therefore, neither statement 1 nor statement 2 is emphatically conveyed.
Incorrect Options:
- Statement 1: "Without science, mankind could not have continued to exist till today." This is an exaggeration not explicitly supported by the passage. While the passage highlights the profound link between science and humanity, it does not present science as the sole determinant of mankind's historical survival.
- Statement 2: "It is the science that will ultimately determine the destiny of mankind." The passage poses a question regarding the role of science in societal issues like international conflict, asking if it is the "inevitable result" or if "the fault lie elsewhere." This interrogative approach indicates that the author is not asserting science as the ultimate determinant of destiny, but rather exploring its complex influence.
- Since neither statement 1 nor statement 2 is emphatically conveyed by the author, options suggesting either one or both are incorrect.