The following text discusses neuroscience.
The "decade of the brain" (1990-2000) promised that neuroscience would soon transform medicine, law, and education. Two decades later, the record is mixed. Treatments for major mental illnesses remain largely unchanged; reliable "brain-reading" proved elusive; neuroscience in courtrooms raised more questions than it answered. Yet understanding has advanced: we know more about neural circuits, brain development, and plasticity. The gap between knowledge and practical application—perennial in science—reminds us that scientific progress rarely follows the linear path that funding enthusiasts predict.
What does the text say about the relationship between neuroscience progress and practical applications?
All promised applications have been fully realized
Knowledge has advanced but practical applications have lagged behind predictions
No advances in understanding have occurred
Practical applications have exceeded scientific understanding
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. "Understanding has advanced" but the record on transformative applications is "mixed"—treatments "remain largely unchanged," and there's a "gap between knowledge and practical application."
- Evidence: Knowledge gain; application gap.
- Reasoning: Progress in understanding hasn't translated to promised benefits.
- Conclusion: Understanding outpaces practical application.
Choice A is incorrect because treatments remain "largely unchanged." Choice C is incorrect because "understanding has advanced." Choice D is incorrect because applications have lagged.