Evaluate Which Viewpoint a Statement Supports
Sample Question:
Which of the following statements best supports Researcher 2’s perspective?
What’s Being Tested: Your ability to match a piece of reasoning or evidence to a specific viewpoint.
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Careful reading of each viewpoint’s claims
- Understanding how evidence (even indirect) aligns with broader theories
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Identify core assumptions or claims in each viewpoint
- Choose the option that aligns most logically and directly with those claims
Correct Approach:
- Skim each researcher’s main claim and logic
- Ask: “Which idea naturally extends or reinforces Researcher 2’s view?”
- Eliminate neutral or irrelevant statements, even if they sound scientific
Identify a Statement That Contradicts a Viewpoint
Sample Question:
Which of the following statements would most directly contradict Researcher 1’s explanation?
What’s Being Tested: Can you detect logical conflict between a statement and a viewpoint’s reasoning?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Understanding internal logic of each perspective
- Recognizing what would violate or disprove that logic
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Be clear on what the researcher is arguing, not just what topic they’re addressing
- Find statements that actively oppose their explanation, not just differ from it
Correct Approach:
- Restate the core of the researcher’s idea in simple terms
- Look for options that present the opposite claim, mechanism, or assumption
- Eliminate answers that don’t directly engage with the researcher’s argument
Infer How a Researcher Would Respond to New Evidence
Sample Question:
If new evidence showed that energy is lost as heat in this system, which researcher would most likely revise their hypothesis?
What’s Being Tested: Can you apply the logic of a perspective to a hypothetical development?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Understanding how flexible or rigid a model is
- Knowing how new evidence interacts with current assumptions
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Determine whether the new evidence confirms, challenges, or expands a researcher’s model
- Choose the response that is consistent with their reasoning style
Correct Approach:
- Identify which researcher’s explanation conflicts most with the new evidence
- Assess whether their view would need to change — or already accounts for it
- Pick the one most logically challenged by the new info
Distinguish Between Competing Explanations
Sample Question:
Which of the following best distinguishes Researcher 1’s explanation from Researcher 2’s?
What’s Being Tested: Can you pinpoint the core difference between two models or explanations?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Comparison of mechanisms, assumptions, or predicted outcomes
- Identifying what each explanation includes or omits
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Clearly understand how each explanation works
- Avoid confusing tone differences with substantive differences
Correct Approach:
- Compare key claims (e.g., what causes the phenomenon)
- Focus on differences in reasoning, not just wording
- Choose the answer that reflects a real conceptual divide
Apply a Viewpoint to a New Scenario
Sample Question:
Based on Researcher 2’s explanation, what would likely happen if temperature increased by 20°C?
What’s Being Tested: Can you use a researcher’s theory to make a logical prediction in a new case?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Understand variable relationships within the model
- Apply the same cause-effect pattern to a new condition
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Make sure the prediction follows from the model, not outside knowledge
- Use the researcher’s stated mechanism to guide your answer
Correct Approach:
- Identify what temperature does in that researcher’s model
- Extend that logic to what a 20°C increase would imply
- Eliminate answers that break the researcher’s own rules
Judge Whether a Claim Is Consistent with a Viewpoint
Sample Question:
Is the claim that “mass has no effect on wave behavior” consistent with Researcher 1’s perspective?
What’s Being Tested: Can you determine if a statement fits within a model, even if it wasn’t explicitly stated?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Inference from what the researcher did say to what they would likely agree with
- Logical consistency
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Match implied assumptions or reasoning
- Avoid stretching beyond what the model can reasonably support
Correct Approach:
- Review the core logic of Researcher 1’s viewpoint
- Ask: “Would this claim have to be true if their explanation is valid?”
- Choose consistent extensions, reject contradictions or unrelated claims
Determine Which Researcher a Statement Aligns With
Sample Question:
Which researcher would most likely agree that gravitational energy affects object motion in the system?
What’s Being Tested: Can you assign a new idea or claim to the correct perspective?
Knowledge & Skills Required:
- Understanding the reasoning focus of each researcher (e.g., energy-based vs. force-based models)
- Ability to trace statements back to their logical home
What’s Needed to Answer Correctly:
- Find which model the statement logically extends or fits into
- Rule out researchers who never addressed that concept or who would logically disagree
Correct Approach:
- Match the subject and structure of the statement to what each researcher argued
- Eliminate researchers whose reasoning relies on other principles entirely
- Choose the one whose logic the statement would naturally support