PT147.S1.Q18 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 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 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 4 · lr

Most scientists surveyed reject the Minsk Hypothesis. Why? Because the vast majority are aware of a particular experiment, and the vast majority accept a particular law, and these two things combined contradict the Minsk Hypothesis.

The author is trying to use the scientist’s knowledge of two particular things to conclude the rejection of a third thing (Minsk Hypothesis), because of an implication of combining the former two things (contradiction). But, we do not know if the scientists are aware of this contradiction. We know that they are aware of each thing independently, but we need to know that they are aware of the contradiction.

There is also a smaller assumption: Even if we do assume that the scientists are aware of the contradiction, there could still be reasons that the scientists choose to accept the Minsk Hypothesis.

This matches our prediction, and it must be true. If scientists are generally unaware of the contradiction, then the author’s support for the scientists rejecting the Minsk Hypothesis has been severed from the argument.

Too strong. It is required that there’s some overlap between these groups (this is already ensured because it’s two sets of “almost all”), but they do not have to be the exact same ones. J.Y.’s video explanation is strongly recommended here—visual representation will help.

The scientists don’t need to know a single thing about the methodology of the experiment. We know they are familiar with the results; we are concerned with their knowledge of what happens when the results are combined with Wang’s Law.

The conclusion is only about the scientists that were surveyed, so we do not need the sample to be representative.

The scientists accept Wang’s law whether it has been proven or not. We are trying to support that the scientists are anti-hypothesis based on their acceptance of this law; it doesn’t matter if it’s true.

Also, if it hasn’t been shown to be true, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Question

59% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 143

157

75% 171

Question Stem Tags

Necessary assumption

Stimulus Tags

Fact v. belief v. knowledge

Popularity Avg. score

59%

164

36%

160

155

154

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 147 - Section 1 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action