If you had to answer this multiple answer question, what would your answers be? See Details?

I would choose all but (a). Science tells me that the sun will rise tomorrow and why. Technology does not. Even if technology is involved in finding out the answer, it is not the telescope itself that gives me an answer. As such, science and technology cannot be equivalent.

As for the rest, we know that technology has influenced history. In the US Civil War, for instance, the Union had better weapons than the Confederates. This is one of the advantages that led to the Union winning the war. A similar argument could be made in terms of the atomic bomb.

We also know that technology influences science because we’ve seen the rise of new sciences like computer engineering. The evolving state of technology constantly effects the state of science and science education, which in turn contributes to the creation of new technology. It is a self-reinforcing cycle that pushes us to progress ever further.

The last two can be demonstrated in various ways, but the simplest way might be to look at the uses to which cameras have been put. Time-lapse photography has been used to study everything from the metamorphosis of butterflies to the deterioration of organic matter, whereas high speed photography has been used to study things like the disease vectors of sneezing.

I hate all the answers. It will be interesting to see what other jellies say. I think of technology as developing from science to improve our lives and to facilitate the advancement of science.

I guess if I have to answer I say C. D and E would also be true too. But, still, I find the answers strange.

B is odd because the verb is in present tense, but history is in the past, so does it mean actually it will influence the future? Or, that it has influenced the past?

I really feel like there is an answer missing regarding technology and the average person.

I like all but A and B.

I would not choose A because Science observes things and categorizes them, whereas technology creates things to solve problems (and create them. . .)

I would not choose B for the reasons @JLeslie wrote.

D is correct in my mind because science helps us see things we would ignore that occur so slowly that we do not notice the changes. For instance, global warming, extinction (sometimes slow), and continental drift.

E is correct in the case of electrons and the movement of the earth.

One problem I noticed was in my interpretation of the word technology. Reading the question, I interpreted technology to mean computers, and really didn’t think about it differently until reading @SavoirFaire‘s answer.

I would not pick A. C,D E are definite yes.
B. can go both ways. No- nothing influences history. Once it happens, it happens. Or, Yes – Technology can help us determine history. We would never have known what happened in the Katyn Forest during WWII had we not had the technology to measure and study pollen grains.
It is a confusing question.

Thanks. Those were my exact thoughts. According to the creators of the teaching program, the answers are b, c, d, and e. I have a problem with b, though because as @JLeslie said, nothing influences history. It’s a done deal. All we can do is influence the moment or the future. So I sent my question up to The Creators. They stood by their answer, that technology influences history. I wanted to pull their hair. I mean, me turning left instead of right “influences history,” you know! Rick killed a snake out at the land. I’m sure that influenced history.

I think they’re wrong, it’s it very poorly worded. But sometimes those guys remind me of the pastors I’ve had in the 80’s and 90’s. You’d ask them a question whose obvious answer is outside the realm of the “belief” they’re teaching…and they get a little pissy and defensive. Like they can’t believe someone would question them seein’ as they’re so smart.

I just put a note in there for the students that b is one of the answers, although I disagree with it.

B through E. Tech is not always the same as science.

The proper understanding of (b) does not require backwards causation. The natural interpretation of it is “if you look at history, you’ll see that technology has influenced it.” This is clearly the case. If we insist on looking at it otherwise, however, it might still be true. Consider the interpretation on which “history” refers to the discipline of history. What we believe about the past is affected by technology because technology increases our ability to investigate archaeological sites or decipher ancient texts.

It is also important to note that it does not follow from the fact that technology does more than what is listed that there is an answer missing. Consider the following question:

Which of the following occurred in 1773?

a. The Boxer Rebellion.
b. The Battle of the Bulge
c. The Boston Tea Party
d. The British Invasion

Now, a lot of things occurred in 1773. Captain James Cook became the first European explorer to cross the Antarctic Circle. Emelyan Pugachev sowed the seeds of rebellion in Russia. Presumably, Thomas Jefferson made himself toast at some point (or had one of his servants do it for him). None of this shows, however, that an answer is missing from the question.

@SavoirFaire Another way to look at is history is everything, everything in the past is part of our history. So, technology influences everything.

Technology is not the same as science as science is theoretical rather than practical. I think all the others are true. Since mankind learned how to make fire and flint axe heads technology has transformed the way we live for better or for worse. And the way we live is what becomes history.

That’s right, @JLeslie. EVERYTHING influences what the outcome of history will be. This thread is influencing the outcome of history. So technology doesn’t have any more influence than anything else.

I think it’s an issue of wording, @SavoirFaire. Perhaps, “Technology influences what our history will be,” or something (and that is a “doy” answer.) The way it’s worded, in the present tense, it sounds like it can affect history as it stands, and it can’t. Nothing can.

However, technology can certainly influence our previous notions of what history actually was. For a very good example, see this NOVA documentary on the Conquistador overthrow of the Incas. Modern technology completely re-wrote what really happened.

You have to ask what the writers of the question had in mind: The outcome of future history, or our perception of history. It’s very ambiguous. Just not a good choice for the question.

@JLeslie Sure, but that doesn’t change whether or not (b) is true.

@Dutchess_III Present tense is a grammatical form; and while it often locates events in the present, that is not its only function. It is also used for things like the indicative mood, which is used to state facts. Even if they cannot explain it in this way, every competent English speaker realizes this (though often only implicitly). This is why the natural language interpretation of (b) is “technology has influenced history.”

And of course, we’re all ignoring the possibility of time travel. ~

I believe I am a competent reader. That is not how I interpreted it. Having said that, many of my students are far from competent readers, as are many HS students.

@Dutchess_III I’m not saying that you are not a competent reader. In fact, I’m sure you are. My point was that the answers being written in present tense manifestly does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. Read this post (it’s one of yours) and pick out every statement written in present tense. Now ask yourself: are all of those statements only meant to be true at the moment they were typed, or are some of them indicatives (statements of simple fact, including statements of ongoing fact)?

The latter, I’m sure. We could probably find countless other examples if we went through your (or my, or anyone’s) entire post history. And that proves the point I was making: you, as an obviously competent English speaker, use the present tense for the indicative mood even if you do not explicitly recognize that you are doing so. I’m sure your students do as well, even if they are high school students. Language competence is not the same as GRE-level proficiency, after all. It is something achieved in early life.

What I am saying, then, is simply this: (b) is not false as written. In fact, it is quite true—particularly as question answers are quintessential examples of the indicative use of present tense. Students can be expected to understand this, which is why “The Creators” you speak of (correctly) insist that the question is fine. It’s one of the many features of ordinary language that only seem odd when you think about them too much.

:) I did, didn’t I! I remember trying to be very careful writing that, but I did it anyway. The problem comes in when you’re taking a quiz, and pausing to carefully check the answers before you commit. Then you think too long about it, as I did. Add that to the fact that the program we use tends to try and trip the students up….in the name of “critical thinking” I suppose. In teaching school I was taught that trick questions and answers are wrong, and I DO think it’s wrong, but it’s what we have to deal with.

Just being casual with “teaching school” ^^^^. I have a BS in Education.

@Dutchess_III I agree with you completely about trick questions, and it’s a shame that this program tries to trip up the students. I’ve never quite understood the merit of questions that make students who do understand the concepts being tested look as if they do not (especially when real world applications of those concepts do not typically take place in tricky circumstances).

@SavoirFaire And I appreciate your stance in your well-argued argument. Tomorrow I’ll take it to my boss, who taught English at a HS for 26 years. I guess she’ll be my final answer. Since she sees to my paycheck. :)