PT101.S2.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

Copernicus’s theory about the movement of the Earth and stars was an objectively better theory than Ptolemy’s right from the start, even when there was no evidence to favor one theory over the other. Why was Copernicus’s theory superior? Because his was simpler.

The author concludes that Copernicus’s theory was superior, but her support is merely that his theory was simpler. She must assume that simplicity makes a theory better, at least when there’s no evidence-based reason to prefer one theory over another. This assumption reflects her line of reasoning and connects her support to her conclusion.

So the argument conforms to the principle that when two theories are equally well-supported by observational evidence, the simpler theory is the better one.

This doesn’t tell us whether simplicity makes a theory better or worse—only that it’s the deciding factor. It’s also too general. The author doesn’t imply that simplicity should always be the sole factor when deciding which theory is superior; it’s merely an important factor when the available evidence favors each competing theory equally.

The author doesn’t suggest how likely either theory was to be true or false. Copernicus believed that Ptolemy’s theory was unlikely, but the author herself is silent on the idea of likelihood. She only weighs in on which theory was simpler and which theory was superior.

The author doesn’t suggest that either theory is, or was, more “intuitively true,” so this principle is irrelevant to the argument.

In other words, when two theories are on otherwise equal footing—like Copernicus’s and Ptolemy’s—the simpler theory is the superior one. This reflects the author’s line of reasoning and connects her support to her conclusion.

The author doesn’t suggest which theory is more scientifically important, so this principle is irrelevant to the argument.

PrepTest 101 - Section 2 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action