#20 - Global Reference, Main Point

[Rita]

Hi, could you please explain how to answer this question? I narrowed it down to C and D, but I don't really see how either is a central topic of passage B.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Rita, thanks for the question. This kind of question is something that students should be prephrasing before they even get to the questions, by thinking about the similarities and differences between the passages. What do they have in common, where do they diverge? Give that some thought before launching into even the first question and you will be better equipped to answer all of them.

So, what are these two passages both about, at their core? They are about negative evidence and the ways it can be used to disprove things. They come at it from very different angles, but that's a common theme in both. That supports answer C pretty powerfully.

Why not D? Because passage B really doesn't get into what constitutes "proper technique". Passage A does, somewhat, by talking about adjusting the auxiliary assumptions, but even that isn't really about teaching us what's proper. Since that idea isn't central to passage B, that's enough to reject it, because we need something central to both passages.

If you aren't convinced that answer C captures something central to both passages, try this approach: ask yourself which of the other answers is better than that one. We are told to pick the best answer, and that means sometimes (pretty often, in my experience and opinion) we have to pick an answer that is kind of terrible. That doesn't mean we should reject it, because they never told us to pick good answers, but rather the best answer (of the five choices we are given). So, which answer is better than C? Our authors think that none of them are, and I agree. That's a great reason to pick it, even if you don't like it much on its own merits.

I hope that helps clear up the strategy as well as the answer choice. Good luck!

[Jon Denning]

I'll add a quick note to this in relation to (D) and my take on it: to me both passages are strictly about what it takes to disprove theories, never about how to "confirm" them.

In Passage A both Popper and the author discuss ways a theory can be thrown out (Popper takes a narrower, or perhaps less real-world, view than the author, but that's the gist of both speakers' points). In Passage B we're presented with two cases where assumptions—about no other planets in regards to Uranus' orbit, and about the validity of Newton's laws when considering the orbit of Mercury—have to be dismissed. But at no point in either are we told of a theory that is proven (even Einstein's relativity is merely viewed with "increased confidence"), much less how to prove it.

[crispycrispr]

Hi, I got this question right, but was unsure. I also narrowed down to C & D and eliminated D. I'd like to confirm if my justification for (C) was right.

I was thinking that the examples of passage B were where it discusses the role of negative evidence, but I wasn't sure, as I also wasn't sure if my understanding of "negative evidence" was right (a example that undermines/counters a theory). Like when author of passage B talks about astronomers finding orbit they had predicted for Uranus being incorrect, and in the second paragraph, when Vulcan was never found--these were what I thought the "negative evidence" were, but please correct me if I'm wrong!! I'm really not sure.

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi crispy,

It seems to me that you have a good understanding of negative evidence in both passages! Here are some concrete ways to view the "negative evidence" presented in Passage B.

1. Researchers assume no planets are in the vicinity of Uranus. The original orbital prediction fails, which can be used to disprove that assumption (Neptune is later found).

2. Researchers assume Newton's laws can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury. The prediction fails, which can be used to disprove that assumption (Einstein's theory of relativity is later used).

I hope this clarifies a bit! Let us know if you have any other questions.

[lemonade42]

Hi,
Can someone explain why (E) is wrong. I was thinking A and B both talk about theories, thinking, or math involved in disproving a theory, but never mention actual physical experimentation to disprove the theories. So that they would be irrelevant in disproving the theories.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lemonade,

There are several problems with Answer E.

First, Passage A does mention experimentation. In lines 28-30, "when an experiment does not work out as predicted, there is usually more than one possible explanation." This statement does NOT imply that experimentation is irrelevant for disproving a scientific theory, only that the results don't conclusively disprove that theory (because something else could have gone wrong, such as instrument malfunction or some other factor). In other words, more testing/research is probably needed.

Second, even if experimentation had never been mentioned in either passage, that does NOT mean that "the irrelevance of experimentation for disproving a scientific theory" is a central topic of both passages. In order for that to be a central topic of both passages, each passage would have to have directly addressed this topic, either by arguing that experimentation is or isn't relevant or showing examples of this. Merely not mentioning a topic is not enough. For example, neither passage discusses the economy, but it would not be accurate to state that "the irrelevance of the economy for disproving a scientific theory" is a central topic of both passages.

As Adam mentioned above, it's important to prephrase these answers before looking at the answer choices. Understanding that Passage A is a discussion about the role of negative evidence in science research will go a long way in answering this question.

Understanding the topic of Passage B (and how it relates to Passage A) can be a bit more difficult as it doesn't specifically mention "negative evidence" by name. It's important to remember that the two passages are going to be related in some way (as all comparative reading passages are) and that a common pattern for the comparative passages (especially science passages) is that one passage outlines a theory or concept, while the second applies that theory/concept or shows examples of that theory/concept.

Here, Passage A discusses the role of negative evidence in science research and Passage B shows specific examples of negative evidence in science research.