Scientist: A number of errors can plague a data-collection process. Since examining the collected data enables researchers to detect many of these errors, it is standard practice for researchers to correct collected data. However, in my field, there is a striking tendency for such corrections to favor Jones’s theory; that is, the majority of corrections result in the corrected data’s being closer than the uncorrected data to what Jones’s theory predicts.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

Why do data corrections in the scientist’s field tend to favor Jones’s theory?

Objective

The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains why these data corrections gravitate towards what Jones’s theory predicts. The explanation must either signal that Jones’s theory is correct and errors naturally stray from the theory, or that those doing the data-corrections are themselves biased towards Jones’s theory.

A
Researchers normally give data that is in line with a theory the same weight as data that conflicts with that theory when they are determining whether to accept that theory.

If anything, it seems possible that researchers are giving data less weight when it strays from Jones’s theory. We also have no idea whether or not the theory has been accepted yet.

B
Researchers in the scientist’s field give data that conflicts with Jones’s theory greater scrutiny than they give data that is in line with Jones’s theory.

Researchers go looking for errors in data that conflicts with Jones’s theory. Data that falls in line with Jones’s theory, on the other hand, goes unremarked and uncorrected. This explains why data is corrected to align with Jones’s theory.

C
Researchers in the scientist’s field are more likely to pursue lines of research that they expect will favor theories they accept than to pursue other lines of research.

It doesn’t matter what researchers expect ahead of time. We need to know why their data-corrections align with Jones’s theory.

D
Even if researchers fail to detect errors in a data-collection process when they examine the data that they collected, that does not guarantee that no such errors exist.

This may be true, but why do researchers mainly detect errors that are then corrected to bring data in line with Jones’s theory? This doesn’t tell us enough about the data-correction process.

E
Researchers in the scientist’s field have formulated several other theories that attempt to explain the same range of phenomena that Jones’s theory attempts to explain.

Why do data-corrections favor Jones’s theory rather than these other theories? If anything, this only complicates things since we now know there are other theories to choose from.


41 comments

Until fairly recently, classroom computers were considered a luxury. Today, educators argue that students who have not had training in computer skills will lack the skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace. However, studies show that schools emphasizing computer technology spend more time teaching computer skills but less time developing students’ basic math and reading skills.

Summary
Until recently, classroom computers were considered a luxury. Educators claim that students that have not been taught computer skills will lack necessary skills to compete in the global marketplace. However, studies show that schools that emphasize computer technology spend more time teaching computer skills than basic skills.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes keeping up with the requirements for developing new skills can lead to neglect in addressing other skills.

A
A knowledge of the latest technologies is no more valuable than a knowledge of the fundamental academic disciplines.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know, in direct comparison, what skills are more valuable than others. We know that computer skills are valuable to enable students to compete, but basic knowledge could be more valuable.
B
Schools cannot emphasize the teaching of computer skills without neglecting other skills.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if a scenario of balancing the attention between different skills is impossible. We only know that recent studies show that schools are not balancing them.
C
A complete rethinking of traditional academic subjects is required in order to keep pace with global developments.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know whether a complete rethinking is required.
D
Attempting to keep pace with recent educational developments can result in neglecting basic skills in favor of other skills.
This answer is strongly supported. Studies show that schools are spending less time teaching the basics in favor of teaching computer skills to students.
E
Giving students a knowledge of new technologies should be the primary goal of education.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know what should be the primary goal of education. The stimulus does not make a value judgment.

20 comments

Godinez: In the past, land was sometimes measured by the amount of time required to plow it. Thus, two plots of equal physical dimensions were considered unequal if one was more difficult to plow than the other. However, knowing how long an area takes to plow reveals little about how many apartment complexes it can hold. Therefore, it became necessary to adopt new measures of land, such as acreage, when land uses diversified.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we needed to come up with new ways to measure the value of land when the uses to which the land was put became more diverse. As an example, if land is used for farming, then the time it takes to plow the land is relevant to the land’s value. But if the land is used for apartments, plow time isn’t useful.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s assessment of the need for a change in measurement of land value: “[I]t became necessary to adopt new measures of land ... when land uses diversified.”

A
It is now easier to measure a piece of land in terms of acres than in terms of plowing time.
The conclusion doesn’t assert anything about the ease or difficulty of measuring land value. It merely states that there was a need for new measures of land value.
B
For modern purposes, newer methods provide a more accurate measure of land than plowing time does.
This may be strongly supported by the argument, but it’s not the conclusion. The conclusion concerns how new measures are necessary. It’s not about the accuracy of particular measurements of land value.
C
Some plots of land that would have been considered unequal by plowing-time measurements are of equal physical dimensions.
This relates only to the context in the first two sentences. The author’s conclusion concerns the necessity of adopting new measures of value.
D
Modern measures of land were adopted when people realized that plowing time was an inadequate measure for some land uses.
This doesn’t capture the author’s claim in the conclusion that new measures were “necessary.” The author wasn’t just saying that modern measures were adopted after plowing-time became inadequate. He was also asserting that we were required to adopt new methods.
E
The advent of diversified land uses made new measures of land necessary.
This paraphrases the conclusion. The “advent of diversified land uses” matches with “when land uses diversified,” and “made new measures of land necessary” matches with “it became necessary to adopt new measures of land.”

13 comments

Researchers studying athletes found that those who played mainly for the love of their sport actually had sharper vision during athletic competitions than those whose main goal was winning a trophy or championship. The vision of the first group of athletes was sharper because the concentration necessary for acute vision during an activity is typically possessed to a greater degree by those whose attention is focused on the activity itself.

Summary

Researchers found that athletes who played mainly for the love of their sport had sharper vision during competitions compared to athletes whose main goal was winning a trophy or championship. The first group had sharper vision because those whose attention is focused on an activity itself usually have more of the concentration necessary for acute vision.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport focus more on the activity itself than athletes whose main goal is winning a trophy or championship.

A
Winning a trophy or championship is not important to athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport.

This answer is unsupported. To say that winning a trophy or championship is not important at all is too extreme. We know that these athletes play mainly for the love of their sport, but this does not have to be the only reason they play.

B
If an athlete’s main goal during an athletic competition is winning a trophy or championship, that athlete will lack the concentration necessary for adequate vision during that competition.

This answer is unsupported. To say that these athletes will not have the concentration necessary is too extreme. We only know from the stimulus that these athletes possess this concentration to a lesser degree, not that they don’t possess it at all.

C
Athletes who play mainly for the love of their sport concentrate more on the sport itself during athletic competitions than do athletes whose main goal is winning a trophy or championship.

This answer is strongly supported. We know from the stimulus that the athletes who play for the love of their sport had sharper vision, and we know that this sharper vision comes from concentrating on the sport itself.

D
It is impossible for an athlete to concentrate on more than one thing at a time during an athletic competition.

This answer is unsupported. To say that it is impossible is too extreme. We know from the stimulus that athletes either mainly play for the love of their sport or wining a trophy. We can’t assume that having a main objective means that there are no other objectives.

E
During athletic competitions, an athlete whose attention is focused on the sport itself will perform better than any athlete whose attention is focused elsewhere.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about an athlete’s performance from the stimulus.


10 comments

Although human economic exchange predates historical records, it is clear that the very first economies were based on barter and that money came later. This can be inferred from occasions in history when, in isolated places, currency largely disappeared from the local economy. At such times, the economy typically reverts to the original barter system, but then quickly abandons this form of exchange when currency becomes available again.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the very first economies were based on barter, with money coming later. This is based on the premise that, during times when the use of money disappears in isolated places, the economy typically “reverts to the original barter system.” These places then go back to money when it becomes available again.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument uses circular reasoning. In asserting as a premise that when money disappears in isolated places, the economy typically “reverts to the original barter system,” the author presupposes that barter was the original system. The author is trying to prove that the very first economies were based on barter, not money. So, when supporting that conclusion, it’s not persuasive for the author to assume that barter was “the original” (very first) system. This simply assumes that the conclusion is already true.

A
The argument concludes that something can cause a particular outcome merely because it is necessary for that outcome.
The conclusion doesn’t assert any causal relationship. It simply asserts that the first economies were based on barter, and money came later. This doesn’t say barter caused money to come about, or that anything caused barter.
B
The argument contains premises that contradict one another.
The premises do not contradict each other. It can be true that when money disappeared, places turned to a barter economy. Then, when money was available again, the economy turned back into one based on money.
C
The argument presumes that something should be done merely because historically it has been done.
The conclusion doesn’t assert that anything “should” be done. The author does not issue a command or recommendation or display any kind of value judgment. The conclusion is simply a descriptive one concerning whether the first economies were barter-based or money-based.
D
The argument infers a causal relation between two events merely from the fact that one event occurred before the other.
The author does not conclude or assume any causal relationship. He simply asserts that the first economies were based on barter, and money came later. This doesn’t imply barter caused money to come about, or that anything caused barter.
E
The argument relies on a premise that presupposes what the argument attempts to show in the conclusion.
(E) accurately describes the circular reasoning of the argument. A premise, in describing how an economy “reverts to the original barter system” presupposes what the argument atttempts to show in the conclusion — that the very first economies were based on barter.

50 comments

Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to first ask themselves if their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by mere curiosity. An investigation into a private matter such as health history is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Varela: You forget that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. Many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity alone.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Pulford concludes that scientists who study the remains of ancient people to learn about their health history should ask whether their investigation is motivated by legitimate science or is motivated by curiosity. This is because Pulford believe that investigations into health history of historical figures can be justified only if it’s done for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge.
Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry, and that many great scientific discovered were motivated by only curiosity. (The implicit conclusion is that investigations into the healthy history of historical figures, even if motivated by mere curiosity, can still be a legitimate scientific inquiry.)

Describe Method of Reasoning
Varela questions a distinction Pulford drew between a study motivated by legitimate science and a study motivated only by curiosity.

A
contending that Pulford’s argument rests on an untenable distinction
Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. This blurs the distinction between a study motivated by scientific inquiry adn a study motivated by curiosity.
B
disputing the validity of a principle that Pulford explicitly states
The principle Pulford states is that investigations into individuals’ health is justified only if it’s for the advancement of science. Varela doesn’t dispute this principle. He broadens the scope of “for the advancement of science” to include studies motivated by curiosity.
C
offering a counterexample to a generalization in Pulford’s conclusion
Varela doesn’t bring up a counterexample. He doesn’t bring up a scientist who doesn’t need to ask whether their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by curiosity.
D
attempting to draw a distinction between two views that Pulford treats as a single view
Pulford brings up his own view that scientists need to ask themselves about the purpose of their study into historical figures’ health. This does not combine two views. And Varela does not try to draw a distinction; he tries to collapse a distinction made by Pulford.
E
maintaining that Pulford’s argument is based on inconsistent premises
Varela does not assert that Pulford’s premises contradict each other. He interprets a distinction made by Pulford (between studies motivated by science and those motivated by curiosity) in a way that suggests the distinction is blurred.

34 comments