PT40.S4.Q13 - according to the theory of gravitation

Comments

• FerdaFresh Alum Member

  October 2017 561 karma

  I did this PT yesterday so this is still very fresh... it's an inference within a Main Point question. The fact that the passage reads "may add to our understanding..." and answer choice (C) says "could someday be extended to a complete solution to the dark matter problem" is a reasonable inference without POEing the other ACs out. Hope this helps.
• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  October 2017 2326 karma

  I'm still not sure how "adding to our understanding" equals a "complete" solution.
• FerdaFresh Alum Member

  October 2017 edited October 2017 561 karma

  It doesn't. But "adding to our understanding" is compatible with could someday offer a "complete solution."

  I've had quite a few quarrels with the wording of certain correct RC ACs, so I think I get your frustration. But this question, IMHO, is not a controversial one.
• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 5320 karma

  I'm still not sure how "adding to our understanding" equals a "complete" solution.

  It doesn't and so you are right to be suspicious. I did this passage a few weeks ago and noticed the same thing during the test. But after eliminating all ACs, it's clearly the best answer. "May add to our understanding" is definitely not the same thing as "Could someday result in a complete solution.". That summary takes a liberty with such an inference, however it is supported in the passage by the "may add to understanding" bit.

  I thought Ferda did a good job of explaining that aspect by describing it as an inference question wrapped up in a MP question. It's a little like, whoever stated AC got a little carried away with themselves. As if I said "Mastering logic may improve you LSAT score" and someone reiterated "You mean that mastering logic could one day result in a 180?!" lol well yes I suppose it could.

  I felt your same hesitation and was supposed JY just breezed past it. But that inference is not a criteria for eliminating the answer choice since it is slightly supported and no other AC even comes close.
• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  October 2017 2326 karma

  Thanks!
• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  October 2017 2326 karma

  @FerdaFresh and @jkatz1488 What bothered me further was that the credited answer for the analogy question is saying that the cosmologists are going to look at other subatomic particles (i.e. other family members) for further explanation. That seems to run counter to the idea of the neutrinos providing the complete solution.
• NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 5320 karma

  @uhinberg ohh I see what you are saying. I did not interpret that "inference" from the MP question to mean that neutrinos provide the complete solution. Only that understanding them can lead to a complete solution. As if to say, this groundbreaking discovery is a watershed moment. Like going to moon can lead to our complete understanding of space travel, but not in and of itself. Rather, once we were able to travel to the moon successfully, that unleashed a wave of new discoveries and technologies as a result.

  I don't have the passage in front of me at the moment, but I think that is supported even stronger than the "complete understanding" bit. If I remember correctly, the final paragraph says something like neutrinos can only account for, at most, 20%. So we know they are not the end all be all. But understanding them can lead us towards understanding the remaining 80%.
• OlamHafuch Alum Member

  October 2017 2326 karma

  @jkatz1488 You are correct. Thanks. I had thought that the language "the finding could be extended" meant that that finding itself would be expanded.