PT152.S2.Q20 > 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

SECTION 2 · lr

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

Pulford concludes that scientists who study the remains of ancient people to learn about their health history should ask whether their investigation is motivated by legitimate science or is motivated by curiosity. This is because Pulford believe that investigations into health history of historical figures can be justified only if it’s done for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge.

Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry, and that many great scientific discovered were motivated by only curiosity. (The implicit conclusion is that investigations into the healthy history of historical figures, even if motivated by mere curiosity, can still be a legitimate scientific inquiry.)

Varela questions a distinction Pulford drew between a study motivated by legitimate science and a study motivated only by curiosity.

Varela points out that curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. This blurs the distinction between a study motivated by scientific inquiry adn a study motivated by curiosity.

The principle Pulford states is that investigations into individuals’ health is justified only if it’s for the advancement of science. Varela doesn’t dispute this principle. He broadens the scope of “for the advancement of science” to include studies motivated by curiosity.

Varela doesn’t bring up a counterexample. He doesn’t bring up a scientist who doesn’t need to ask whether their investigation is a legitimate scientific inquiry or is motivated by curiosity.

Pulford brings up his own view that scientists need to ask themselves about the purpose of their study into historical figures’ health. This does not combine two views. And Varela does not try to draw a distinction; he tries to collapse a distinction made by Pulford.

Varela does not assert that Pulford’s premises contradict each other. He interprets a distinction made by Pulford (between studies motivated by science and those motivated by curiosity) in a way that suggests the distinction is blurred.

Question

56% of people who answer get this correct

This is a very difficult question.

CURVE

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

25% 149

160

75% 170

Question Stem Tags

Method of reasoning or descriptive

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Value judgment

Popularity Avg. score

56%

165

29%

160

155

151

158

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

PrepTest 152 - Section 2 - Question 20

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action