particular claim, there is not enough information to conclude that it is true.
68.
3rd only.
The second paragraph says that “[p]aleontologists and
archaeologists charged that the conclusion was unsupported by archaeological
evidence,” so they appeal to archaeological evidence to criticize Paabo’s
conclusions, and this supports the third statement. The first statement is
wrong because there is no suggestion that the contamination of Neanderthal
DNA with modern human DNA was deliberate, nor even that it was done by
Paabo, nor is any other reason offered to doubt his integrity. The second
statement is wrong because there is no suggestion that they ignore DNA
evidence, even if they are not as persuaded by it as Paabo and his team.
69.
(D).
The passage claims that the reflecting surface must be far enough
away so that the sound of the echo is distinct from the original sound, but not
so far away that the sound is completely dissipated. You can use that
information to eliminate (A) and (B). The passage also claims that multiple
reflecting surfaces are apt to produce a reverberation rather than an echo, so
cross off (C). The anechoic chamber with “sound-absorbing fiberglass
wedges” is presented as a contrast to an “echo chamber,” so (E) is also out.
70.
2nd and 3rd only.
The second paragraph notes that the echo chamber is
constructed with “the acoustical properties of a small cathedral” precisely in
order to create echoes; this supports the second statement. Mountains, along
with buildings, are offered in the second paragraph as examples of the sort of
reflecting surface likely to bring about an echo, which supports the third
statement. The first choice is wrong because the passage describes an
“anechoic chamber” as filled with “sound-absorbing fiberglass wedges,”
which are the opposite of the sound-reflecting objects required to propagate
echoes.
71.
(E).
A “falsifiable idea” is “one that can be shown to be false.” The
statement in choice (E), “no human being lives forever,” can only be shown to
be false if one observes a human being that lives forever. However, this would
be impossible (because of the word “forever”), and thus the idea is not
falsifiable. In addition, answer choices (A) through (D) are incorrect. The
statement “All birds are black” is falsifiable by identifying a single bird that is
not black. The statement “Earth is the only planet in the universe with
intelligent life” can be proven false by finding intelligent life on any planet in
the universe except Earth. The statement “It rains on Mars every day” can be
proven false by observing Mars on a single non-rainy day. The statement
“The sun will explode in 100,000 years” can be proven false by waiting more
than 100,000 years and verifying that the sun has not exploded. Note that
choices (D) and (E) seem somewhat similar—however impractical it is to
wait 100,000 years to falsify something, there is still a big difference between
“100,000 years” and “forever.”
72.
(B).
The author states in the last paragraph that a theory that is unable to
be proven true is very unlikely to be formed. Therefore, it appears that the
author believes that “confirmability” lacks a practical application. This
supports choice (B). The author states in the second paragraph, “it is
understandable that Popper does not devote that much time to the criterion of
‘confirmability,’” implying that confirmability is less important that
falsifiability, not more, so choice (A) is incorrect. Regarding choice (C), the
author states that a theory that is unable to be proven true is unlikely to be
formed. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author believes that confirmability
applies to a broad range of theories. As for choice (D), the first sentence of
the last paragraph states that confirmability follows the same logic as
falsifiability (“By that logic… ”), and thus it appears the author believes that
confirmability is reasonable. As for choice (E), the author states in the last
sentence that “it is understandable that Popper does not devote that much time
to the criterion of ‘confirmability.’” Thus, the author is unlikely to agree that
Popper should have developed the idea of confirmability.
73.
(C).
The second paragraph focuses on the significance of the two
definitions of “political,” as (C) states. Choice (A) is incorrect because no
alternative is offered in the second paragraph. Choice (B) is incorrect because
there is no “revision”—this choice might describe the third paragraph.
Similarly, in (D), there is no “exception.” Choice (E) is closer to the point of
the first paragraph.
74.
(B).
The author mentions the play as an example, or “illustration,” of
when speech is political, which is the aspect discussed in that paragraph. This
matches choice (B). Choice (A) is incorrect as it is used as an example, not
counterpoint. Choice (C) is wrong because the passage does not advocate a
position. Choices (D) and (E) miss the point of the example, which is neither
about universality nor a fallacy.
75.
(A).
The answer to this type of question is always explicit in the passage.
In the third paragraph, the passage cites Hanna Pitkin: “public-spirited
conversation happens when citizens speak in terms of ‘ justice.’” None of the
other choices is mentioned in this section of the passage. Choice (A) is
correct.
76. “Such a definition is not precisely wrong, but rather is outdated and falls
short … ” (second sentence of first paragraph). This is the only one of the
four sentences in paragraphs 1 and 2 that includes an explicit criticism.
77.
(B).
The passage describes two different ideas, explanationism and
predictionism, that have both been used to verify or disprove different
scientific theories. Thus, choice (B) is correct. As for (A), the passage never
states that either theory is superior to the other. Although (C) is true, the
passage only mentions the two models of the solar system as an example of
the workings of explanationism. Therefore, it cannot be the main idea of the
passage. Regarding (D), the passage does not describe what is required to
posit a physical theory. As for (E), a predictionist and an explanationist may
always diverge on how to prove that a scientific theory is true, but they might
still agree on whether or not the theory is correct.
78.
(E).
Before citing the example of the Copernicus and Brahe models of the
universe, the author states in the first paragraph that “it could be the case that
a theory predicts something and yet does not provide the best explanation of
it.” The author goes on to use Copernicus and Brahe as an example, stating
that both of their theories have predictive power, but Brahe’s does not offer
the best explanation for the workings of the solar system. This supports
choice (E). As for (A), the author is actually arguing the opposite: that
predictive power alone is never enough to verify a theory. Regarding (B), the
author does reveal that some theories have more or less of an ad hoc quality,
but this is not the author’s reason for citing this example. The main reason
must be related back to explanationism. As
for (C), the example showed the opposite—both theories were found to
accurately predict future events, and thus they must have both made the same
predictions for those future events. Although it is true that the more
complicated model failed, the author’s intent was to show that an incorrect
model can still make correct predictions; eliminate (D).
79.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |