#22 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[Oneshot06]

I understand the reasoning for why C is right, but I’m still having a hard time understanding why A is wrong when the last paragraph specifically mentions that “in high-altitude habitats such as the Tundra are expected to experience the greatest temp. Increase”...A.) can be directly answered based on the passage...TY in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, Oneshot! The reason answer A is incorrect is that Billings did not address that question in his research. That statement is coming from the author, not from anything Billings did. Our author thinks that Billings' findings are particularly important because they looked at the tundra, which is a major factor in global warming, but Billings never looked at the tundra and compared it to anything else (at least, the passage never says he did).

Since the question is asking what question Billings' research addressed, we have to focus on what Billings was doing. That makes A the better answer and the credited response.

I hope that helps!

[lanereuden]

Why is d wrong?

[James Finch]

Hi Lane,

Billings's research is based on simulations that attempt to model how CO2 levels would be affected by global warming. So Billings used certain temperature increases to then see how CO2 levels would change, based on a totality of environmental factors, including increased plant growth. CO2 was the unknown variable, while temperature was controlled for in the simulation. (D) has it both reversed, making plant growth the unknown variable while CO2 levels is the control, the opposite of what Billings's research was actually doing.

Hope this clears things up!

[lanereuden]

I guess, but what about the first sentence of the second paragraph? What does that mean then?

[Brook Miscoski]

lanereuden,

The first sentence of the second paragraph tells you that the wrong kind of plants might grow and reduce agricultural yield. However, that is Patterson & Flint's research, and you're asked about Billings' research, so you should confine your search to the portions of the passage that discuss Billings' research.

[lanereuden]

lanereuden,

The first sentence of the second paragraph tells you that the wrong kind of plants might grow and reduce agricultural yield. However, that is Patterson & Flint's research, and you're asked about Billings' research, so you should confine your search to the portions of the passage that discuss Billings' research.

How do you know that that is part of Patterson/Flint research? That is, their names are not invoked until further down in the paragraph? Secondly, “recent research shows” could incorporate both/either Patterson/Flint. and Billings—so how do you know it is only about Patterson/Flint...

[George George]

@lanereuden

In general, in Reading Comprehension, if a finding is not specifically attributed to someone, then you should not make the assumption that they were part of the study. Here, Billings name is only brought up in paragraph 3, and that is the info you should focus on in order to answer the question. I think your takeaway here should be that if there is a vague reference to "recent studies" or "some new findings," etc., then don't use that as your starting point on a Specific Reference Q.

[lanereuden]

@lanereuden

In general, in Reading Comprehension, if a finding is not specifically attributed to someone, then you should not make the assumption that they were part of the study. Here, Billings name is only brought up in paragraph 3, and that is the info you should focus on in order to answer the question. I think your takeaway here should be that if there is a vague reference to "recent studies" or "some new findings," etc., then don't use that as your starting point on a Specific Reference Q.

That does not resolve my question: How do you know that that is part of Patterson/Flint research? That is, their names are not invoked until further down in the paragraph?

[Adam Tyson]

Two indications that the statement at the beginning of the second paragraph relates to Patterson and Flint: 1) they are in the same paragraph. That by itself is a strong indication, as it would not make sense to introduce a general idea (CO2 has a differential impact) and then follow it up in the same paragraph with a reference to specific research that is unrelated to that general idea. You should accept that structural idea as a given in RC passages. 2) The description of what Patterson and Flint looked at matches the general description at the beginning of the paragraph. "Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds'" - that's about the differentiation that may occur in CO2-rich environments. Patterson and Flint are being cited as a specific example of the more general idea given at the beginning of the paragraph. That's typical of how RC passages are built.

All this is, however, academic, because the question asked you what Billings' research addressed, "according to the passage". Does the passage tell you that Billings looked at differential plant growth? If it did not clearly do so, and if you have to help the answer with outside information (like "maybe those studies mentioned in the second paragraph were part of what Billings was doing"), that should make you want to reject that answer. Don't look for a way to justify an answer as something that could be true - look for an answer that IS true, based solely on what you read and with no outside help. Billings was mentioned in the third paragraph, so look there to see what you KNOW he was doing, not just what he might possibly also be doing that isn't mentioned there. Base your answer on the text, not on speculation.