Passage A is adapted from a book review by physicist Freeman Dyson. Passage B is adapted to the review.
Passage
There are two extreme views concerning the role of science in human understanding. The reductionist view holds that all kinds of knowledge, from physics to ethics, can be reduced to science. The traditional view holds that science is one of many independent sources of knowledge. Most people hold views between these the reductionist extreme, while I am near the traditional extreme.
The question of the limits of science is closely connected to the possible existence of paranormal phenomena. Scientific attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy have failed. Skeptics conclude from this that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I do not accept this conclusion because I am not a reductionist. Paranormal phenomena may just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible.
This hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence (stories of ordinary people who apparently possess paranormal abilities) collected by the Society for Psychical Research and similar organizations. This evidence is anecdotal rather than scientific, since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. But the organizations have conscientiously interviewed eyewitnesses right after the events are not observable in well-controlled scientific experiments. Strong emotion and stress are incompatible with scientific procedures.
Paranormal phenomena and the scientific method may be complementary. "Complementary" is a technical term in quantum physics, meaning that two descriptions of nature are both valid but cannot be observed simultaneously. The classic example of complementarity is the dual nature of light. Light behaves as a wave but we cannot see both in the same experiment.
Passage
Freeman Dyson makes a ridiculous plea for openness to the paranormal because he is not a reductionist and because anecdotal evidence convinces him that under certain conditions (e.g., stress), some people exhibit paranormal powers, unless they are placed in controlled scientific conditions, in which case the powers mysteriously disappear. A scientist of reductionist or reading about weird things that happen to people does not change this scientific fact.
What this question is testing
Your task
Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.
Common trap
Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.
Winning move
Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.