Self-study
Unlike other mechanical devices, the clock did not evolve from the simple to the complex. ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████████████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ███████████
Stimulus Summary
Most mechanical devices start out simple and get more complex over time. The clock is the rare exception: the earliest clocks were the most complicated, and clocks have been simplifying ever since.
The author explains why. Early clocks were built primarily to predict astronomical events, and the mechanisms that did that work happened to also let you tell time as a side effect. Over time, the timekeeping job took over and the astronomical job faded. So the complexity drop coincides with a change in function: predicting the stars is hard, telling time is easier, and modern clocks focus on the easier job.
Anticipation
Most Strongly Supported questions rarely allow a strong anticipation before going to the answers. We'll rely on process of elimination.
11.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████
a
Present-day clocks are ██ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ██████████
"Of no use" is too extreme. The stimulus only tells us that the astronomical functions diminished, not that they vanished. A modern clock could still, in principle, help you mark when sunrise happens or when a holiday falls; we just have no information either way.
b
The mechanisms used ██ ███████ ████████████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████
(B) compares old astronomy mechanisms to recent astronomy mechanisms.
The stimulus suggests nothing about how mechanisms for predicting astronomical phenomena have evolved. It tells us early clocks were complex and later clocks are simpler because the later clocks aren't trying to predict astronomy. But modern radio telescopes, observatory instruments, or astronomy software could be much more complicated than anything in an old clock. We have no idea.
c
Clocks used only ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████████
"Do not differ appreciably" requires us to know that timekeeping clocks are all roughly equal to one another in complexity. The stimulus doesn't support that. An ornate grandfather clock and a plain digital wristwatch are both used only for telling time, and they can differ in mechanical complexity. The stimulus only suggests that timekeeping clocks tend to be simpler than the earliest astronomy clocks, not that they're roughly equal to each other in complexity.
d
The mechanisms that ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ███████
Strongly supported: (1) the earliest clocks were the most complicated, (2) their complexity came from the mechanisms that predicted astronomical phenomena, and (3) more recent clocks are simpler because they mainly need to do timekeeping. This suggests that the astronomical-prediction mechanisms in the earliest clocks were more complicated than the timekeeping mechanisms in at least some more recent clocks.
e
Interest in predicting ████████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████
This conflates "use of clocks to predict astronomy" with "interest in predicting astronomy." The stimulus only tells us that the astronomical role of clocks has diminished. People could be just as fascinated by astronomical phenomena as they ever were, and simply use other tools (telescopes, observatories, software) to satisfy that interest.