I was also able to arrive to (D) and (E)- but am having trouble choosing between these two. Wrongheaded and convergent also fit as per my understanding- the theories could be “wrong” and that is why the productivity of approaches is “convergent”, i.e. mixed- +ve / -ve.
To me, the last answer (E) just seemed like a better fit. But can you please help me tighten the logic here, and guide me on how you approach situations like these, where there are two, seemingly correct options- not sure if there is a technique to think about these, so wanted to check
It’s great that your intuition is on point, which is why you gravitated towards E. Here are objective clues to understand why E is the better pick.
Second Blank –> negative (using math strategy). Though powerful ⇒ contrast → the tools still yield ___ theories; in econ/poli-sci, truly productive approaches have long been __. This enables you to eliminate convergent (which is a positive term = coalescing, merging, aligning)
First blank → ‘although powerful’ contrasts well with both wrong and simplistic. But meaning-wise, saying something is ‘powerful but wrong makes no sense. (Like saying I’m really good at fast calculations, but I always give the wrong answer). Therefore, simplistic, which means reductionist or naive, makes more sense. The tool is powerful but reductionist → it can’t capture nuances or isn’t fully accurate—> why it isn’t as productive as you want it to be.
It is always a great idea not to rely entirely on intuition because it can lead you astray, and ETS can use your cognitive biases against you. Your strategy of looking for the logic is better and more suited to the GRE.
