This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

2 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

This is an EXCEPT strengthening question, indicated by the question stem asking: Each of the following, if true, would support the conclusion above EXCEPT:

The stimulus tells us about the findings of some state researchers. They discovered that in the period following the oil price increases of the ‘70s, home energy consumption has declined. So people are using less power since oil got more expensive, that makes sense. The researchers hypothesized that almost all, so a strong majority, of the reduction was achieved through (I) reduced standards of living, and (II) changes in the way people spend their time. So people don’t live as well, and have been spending their time differently. Since this is an EXCEPT question, we know four of the answer choices are going to add support to the researcher’s conclusion. The correct answer will be the one that either weakens the conclusion, or just fails to support it. Let’s see what we get:

Answer Choice (A) This supports the researchers conclusion, as its seems people are changing the way they spend their time (concentrating their winter activities) and reducing their living standard (heating individual rooms instead of the whole house).

Answer Choice (B) So people are spending more time when it is cold in free communal spaces. This supports our researcher’s conclusion, as we are explicitly told they are spending their time differently, and in a way suggesting a reduced standard of living (spending time in a public building instead of heating a home).

Correct Answer Choice (C) When we compare this answer to A and C, it should be clear that it doesn’t do what they do. A and B support our researchers’ hypothesis: the way people reduced their energy consumption was by changing their lifestyle. But what we get in this answer is an alternative hypothesis (which will always weaken a hypothesis): people didn’t change the way they lived, they just changed the efficiency of their heating systems!

Answer Choice (D) Anyone who had a frugal family member that liked to save on heating costs can probably relate to this, and I think it is safe to say that keeping your house cold is a reduction in living standards, and the answer choice even specifies that this was not something they were accustomed to (therefore it was a change in the way they lived!).

Answer Choice (E) This is practically the same in substance to D, and wrong for the same reason.


Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

1 comment

Shortly after Isaac Newton circulated some of his theories of light in 1672, his colleague Robert Hooke claimed that most of those theories were based on Hooke’s own work. A modern reader might interpret Newton’s famous comment, “if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,” as a conciliatory gesture acknowledging indebtedness to Hooke and other contemporary scientists for some of his theories. Conciliatory gestures acknowledging indebtedness were uncharacteristic of Newton, however, and in his day such allusions to “giants” typically referred to the ancient Greeks, not to contemporary scientists.

Summary
After Isaac Newton announced his theories of light, his colleague Robert Hooke claimed most of those theories were based on Hooke’s work. Newton famously commented “if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulder of giants.” A modern reader may interpret this quote as acknowledging Newton’s indebtedness to Hooke and other scientists for some of Newton’s theories. However, these gestures were uncharacteristic of Newton, and in Newton’s day “giants” usually referred to the ancient Greeks.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Newton probably did not intend his famous quote to give credit to Hooke and other scientists for his theories.

A
Newton did not intend the quoted comment to be an acknowledgment that his theories of light were largely derived from Hooke’s.
This answer is strongly supported. If Newton’s reference to “giants” typically referred to the ancient greeks, then it is highly unlikely Newton’s famous quote was intended to give credit to Hooke for Newton’s theories of light.
B
Newton did not take credit for any advances that Hooke made in the theory of light.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know for a fact if Newton did not take credit for any part of Hooke’s work. We only know from the stimulus that Hooke claims that most of Newton’s theories were based on Hooke’s work.
C
Newton did not believe that any of Hooke’s theories of light were based on those of the ancient Greeks.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what Newton believed about Hooke’s work. We only know that Hooke claimed that most of Newton’s theories were based on Hooke’s work.
D
Newton intended to credit some contemporary scientists other than Hooke for some of the advances that Newton made in the theory of light.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know for a fact what Newton’s intentions were.
E
Newton was not familiar with Hooke’s work on the theory of light.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what Newton knew about any of Hooke’s work. We only know that Hooke claimed that most of Newton’s theories were based on Hooke’s work.

Comment on this

Ideally, scientific laws should display the virtues of precision and generality, as do the laws of physics. However, because of the nature of their subject matter, laws of social science often have to use terms that are imprecise; for example, one knows only vaguely what is meant by “republicanism” or “class.” As for generality, laws that apply only in certain social systems are typically the only ones possible for the social sciences.

Summary
The ideal scientific laws are precise and general. The laws of physics have these qualities. Social science laws tend to be imprecise because the subject matter may be less clearly defined. Social science laws are also more specific because they can only apply to certain social systems.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Social science laws deviate more from the ideal of scientific laws than physics laws.
It is not always possible for social science laws to be precise and general.

A
All else being equal, a precise, general scientific law is to be preferred over one that is not general.
Strongly supported. This restates the rule in the first sentence. Ideally, scientific laws should be precise and general.
B
The social sciences would benefit if they redirected their focus to the subject matter of the physical sciences.
Unsupported. The author discusses how it is harder for social science laws to match the ideal, but does not claim that the social sciences should change for that reason.
C
Terms such as “class” should be more precisely formulated by social scientists.
Unsupported. The author makes no claims as to what social scientists “should” do. In fact, the author implies that the imprecision of certain terms is inherent: “laws of social science have to use terms that are imprecise”.
D
Social scientists should make an effort to construct more laws that apply to all societies.
Unsupported. The author makes no claims as to what social scientists “should” do. In fact, the author implies that the specificity of the rules is all that is possible in the social sciences.
E
The laws of social science are invariably not truly scientific.
Unsupported. The author does not claim that laws that deviate from the ideal are unscientific. The author only distinguishes how the fields vary.

8 comments