CAT VARChardRC · Philosophy

Knowledge on Trust

Updated 22 October 2026

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

1A long tradition in Western epistemology treated knowledge as a solitary achievement. To know something, on this view, was to have seen the evidence for oneself and judged it; to believe a claim merely because someone had asserted it was to hold an opinion, not to possess knowledge. The ideal knower took nothing on authority. Testimony could serve as a provisional convenience, much as a traveller might follow a stranger's directions, but it was understood to be redeemable only by personal verification, and until then it remained a kind of debt.

2The trouble is that this ideal, taken at its word, would leave almost everyone knowing almost nothing. Most people know the date of their own birth, the shape of continents they have never seen and the fact that blood circulates through the body, yet few have verified any of these for themselves. Even the specialist depends on instruments calibrated by others and on published results that no single researcher could reproduce in a lifetime. The reductionist response is to say that testimony is justified only because each of us has inductive evidence that informants are generally reliable. But much of the evidence for that reliability is itself testimonial, so the reduction either moves in a circle or demands a personal track record that no individual could ever compile.

3Anti-reductionists cut the knot by treating testimony as a basic source of justification, on a par with perception and memory: a hearer is entitled to accept what is said unless there is some positive reason for doubt. This escapes the circle, but it invites the charge of credulity. If acceptance is the default, the view must explain what protects the hearer from the liar, the rumour and the confident amateur, and an appeal to the hearer's alertness to warning signs seems too thin to bear the weight.

4The more promising answers relocate vigilance from the individual hearer to the social arrangement in which claims circulate. A hearer need not check each claim if the community has institutions that make deception costly and error correctable: editorial review, professional sanctions, the long memory of reputation. On this account, whether it is rational to trust depends less on the private evidence available to the hearer than on the health of the system that delivered the testimony. The same sentence read in a carefully maintained reference work and heard from a stranger at a bus stop may be identical in content; what differs is the network of accountability standing behind it.

5This relocation carries an uncomfortable implication. If the justification of belief depends partly on institutions, then the decay of those institutions is an epistemic harm in its own right, distinct from any lapse in individual judgement. Someone may reason impeccably by every standard that applies to a single mind and still end up misinformed, because the channels on which that reasoning relied have been quietly corrupted. The solitary ideal located intellectual virtue entirely within the individual; its successor must locate part of it in the upkeep of shared practices, which no one can sustain alone.

Question 1 · Multiple choice (+3 / −1)

Which of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

Show the solution

Answer: C. Because personal verification cannot account for most of what people know, trust in testimony is best justified partly by the reliability of the social institutions through which claims circulate.

Paragraph 2 shows the solitary ideal fails, paragraphs 2 and 3 find both standard responses lacking, and paragraphs 4 and 5 develop the 'more promising' social account and its implications. C captures this whole arc.
A is the anti-reductionist view, which paragraph 3 criticises as open to the charge of credulity. B distorts the social account: the author ties rational trust to accountable institutions, not to deference to authority as such.
D is extreme: paragraph 5 warns that institutional decay is an epistemic harm, but never says it has already made knowledge impossible.

Question 2 · Multiple choice (+3 / −1)

The example of the reference work and the stranger at a bus stop (paragraph 4) is used primarily to suggest that

Show the solution

Answer: B. whether it is rational to accept a claim can depend on factors outside both the claim itself and the hearer's own reasoning

Paragraph 4 stresses that the two sentences may be 'identical in content'; what differs is 'the network of accountability standing behind' each. The rationality of trust thus turns on something external to the words and to the hearer's private evidence. That is B.
A makes a claim about honesty that the passage does not make; the point is about accountability structures, not the character of strangers. C is the opposite of the example's point, since the content is the same in both cases.
D is practical advice the passage never gives; the example illustrates a theory of justification, not a rule of conduct.

Question 3 · Multiple choice (+3 / −1)

According to the passage, the reductionist account of testimony runs into difficulty because

Show the solution

Answer: D. the evidence that informants are reliable is itself largely obtained through testimony

Paragraph 2 says 'much of the evidence for that reliability is itself testimonial', so the reduction either moves in a circle or needs a track record no one could compile. That is D.
A is the objection to the anti-reductionist view in paragraph 3. C is the implication of the social view in paragraph 5. B is never raised against reductionism; perception and memory appear only as the anti-reductionists' comparison.

Question 4 · Multiple choice (+3 / −1)

The author's attitude towards the anti-reductionist position is best described as

Show the solution

Answer: A. crediting it with avoiding one problem while finding its answer to another inadequate

Paragraph 3 says the view 'escapes the circle' (a credit) but 'invites the charge of credulity', and the reply available to it 'seems too thin to bear the weight' (a criticism). That is A.
B fails because paragraph 4 calls a different, social account 'more promising'. C is too harsh: the author grants that the view solves the circularity problem. D ignores the contrast the author draws between the two positions.

Question 5 · Multiple choice (+3 / −1)

The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements?

Show the solution

Answer: C. Careful individual reasoning is not, on its own, enough to guarantee well-founded belief.

Paragraph 5 says someone 'may reason impeccably by every standard that applies to a single mind and still end up misinformed' if the channels are corrupted. C follows directly.
A is extreme: the author says verification cannot account for most knowledge, not that it is worthless. B contradicts paragraph 3. D has no support; paragraph 5 treats institutional decay as a harm 'in its own right' without ranking it below gullibility.

Full worked solution

Paragraph 1 states the traditional, solitary ideal of knowledge: know only what you have verified yourself, and treat testimony as a debt to be repaid by personal checking.
Paragraph 2 shows the ideal would leave people knowing almost nothing, then rejects the reductionist repair because the evidence for informants' reliability is itself testimonial.
Paragraph 3 presents the anti-reductionist alternative (testimony as a basic source), credits it with avoiding the circle, and faults it for having no adequate answer to the charge of credulity.
Paragraph 4 gives the author's preferred direction: move vigilance from the individual to accountable social institutions, illustrated by the reference work and the stranger at the bus stop.
Paragraph 5 draws the implication: if justification depends on institutions, their decay is an epistemic harm, and intellectual virtue partly lies in maintaining shared practices.
Central idea: because knowledge cannot rest on personal verification alone, the rationality of trusting testimony depends partly on the health of the social institutions behind it, which makes maintaining them an epistemic responsibility.