Leavis reading with Trilling

"He would be still more surprised to be told it is cliche when, describing the distinctive traits of his scientists, he says: 'they have the future in their bones.' He clearly feels that it has an idiosyncratic speech-raciness that gives his wisdom a genial authority. But it is basic cliche- for Snow's pretensions, more damagingly cliche than the kind of thing I instanced first, for it dismisses the issue, tacitly eliminates the problem, discussion of which would have been the raison detre of the lecture if Snow had been capable of the preoccupation, and the accordant exercise of thought, he advertises." (Leavis, 37)

How did the differing writing styles of the Leavis and Snow readings lend credulity or deter readers from their message? Does Snow's writing contain dangerous generalizations? Did Leavis' article show any resemblance the "traditional culture" Snow describes? Does Leavis provide a more effective educational plan than Snow's?