Question

what is music? the brain knows.
(1) through research has found that even the most ancient cultures) made music. the reasons behind
the universal drive remain unexplained 2 however, until recently they have been unable to verify this
theory 3 scientists have long assumed that there must be a neural basis for our love of music, and
they have searched for evidence using conventional brain - scanning technology. 4 now, though,
researchers at the massachusetts institute of technology (mit) have devised a weird trick for brain
imaging that seems to support this long - held hypothesis. (13)
these mit researchers performed mathematical analyses of scans of the auditory cortex and found
that specific groups of neurons in this region, which is located in the temporal lobes, fires in response
to music. however, they found a part of the brain that is dedicated to distinguishing music from other
types of sound. during testing, neurons in the area fired in response to everything from bach to
biaggres, and hip - hop but stayed unmoved by other sounds. different parts of the auditory cortex
responded to such sounds as running water and falling trees. (16)

1. for the sake of the logic and coherence of this paragraph, sentence 2 should be placed?

a where it is now.
b before sentence 1.
c after sentence 3.
d after sentence 4.

Explanation:

To determine the correct placement, we analyze the logical flow. Sentence 2 ("Scientists have long assumed...") introduces the assumption, Sentences 3 and 4 discuss the lack of evidence and the new development (MIT researchers' work). Placing Sentence 2 after Sentence 4 would disrupt the flow. Wait, no—wait, let's re - evaluate. Wait, the original structure: Sentence 1 is about research on music in ancient cultures. Sentence 2 is the scientists' assumption. Then Sentence 3 says they searched for evidence, Sentence 4 says now MIT researchers did something. Wait, no, the question is about Sentence 2's placement. Wait, actually, the correct logical flow is: Sentence 1 (research on music in ancient cultures), then Sentence 2 (scientists' assumption about neural basis) would make sense, but no—wait, the options: Let's look at the context. The MIT researchers' work (Sentence 4 - related) comes after the scientists' assumption and the search for evidence. Wait, no, the key is that Sentence 2 states the assumption, then Sentences 3 and 4 talk about the lack of evidence and then the new approach. But the option D is "after Sentence 4". Wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the sentence "imaging that seems to support this long - held hypothesis" (Sentence 13 - related) and the MIT researchers' work. Wait, actually, the correct placement for Sentence 2 (the scientists' assumption) should be after Sentence 4? No, that doesn't make sense. Wait, no—let's think again. The original text: Sentence 1: research on music in ancient cultures. Sentence 2: Scientists have long assumed... Then Sentence 3: they searched for evidence... Sentence 4: Now, though, researchers at MIT... So the logical flow is: introduce the research (Sentence 1), then the scientists' assumption (Sentence 2), then their search for evidence (Sentence 3), then the new development (Sentence 4). But the question is about where to place Sentence 2. Wait, maybe the original Sentence 2 is out of place. Wait, the options: A: where it is now (but that might be wrong), B: before Sentence 1 (no, that would be illogical), C: after Sentence 3 (Sentence 3 is about searching for evidence, Sentence 2 is the assumption, so placing after 3 is wrong), D: after Sentence 4. Wait, no—wait, maybe the correct flow is: Sentence 1 (research), Sentence 4 (MIT researchers' work), then Sentence 2 (the scientists' assumption) to introduce the hypothesis that the MIT work supports. Wait, that makes sense. So Sentence 2, which is the scientists' assumption, should come after Sentence 4 (the MIT researchers' work) to show that the MIT work supports the long - held assumption. So the correct answer is D.

Answer:

D. after Sentence 4