(Updated) LR PM (49/50)

[StudentUVA]

but I thought the stim said that there were controls groups (groups comprised of normal kids) for sugar AND the substitute. If that's the case. then even if the sub causes hyperactivity in that one control group, the study could still show that the ADD kids were more hyper than the normal kids who also consumed sugar. I thought the point was that ADD kids would have increased hyperactivity relative to normal kids their own age.

No the study included two groups of add children. One ate regular sugars, and one artificial. Both behaved the same. So they concluded regular sugars dont cause them to be hyper. But if artificial sugar has the same effect than the study is not valid in concluding that.

[Harmonium]

damn I remembered that all wrong if that study was so simple. But still, if the testing environment already screwed everything up, it seems like that would weaken a study as much as one could be weakened.

[StudentUVA]

No perfect LR for me

not for me either... damn EVt question. And i'm not sure about a few others.

[pierard]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

[StudentUVA]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.

[pierard]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.

I guess that makes sense.  I just thought that maybe the star that was farther away could have been stronger, so it doesn't really help at all.  Where if it was the first time and it was wrong, the theory could obviously be wrong.

[pierard]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.

Wait, I'm so confused.  So saying by saying that the first time that there was a supernova and it didn't create a neutron star DOESN'T strengthen the argument that supernovas don't always create neutron stars.  I mean if it's the first time and it doesn't do it, then it must not always do it.  I have to be approaching this wrong.

[StudentUVA]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.

Wait, I'm so confused.  So saying by saying that the first time that there was a supernova and it didn't create a neutron star DOESN'T strengthen the argument that supernovas don't always create neutron stars.  I mean if it's the first time and it doesn't do it, then it must not always do it.  I have to be approaching this wrong.

I dont understand your answer choice, so please explain. It was the first time they observed it? so what, how does it strengthen the argument?

[pierard]

Can one of you tell me why the "it was the first time" answer for the supernova question couldn't be the right answer.  It's what I picked, and my reasoning is okay (if it was the first time and it was wrong...well then that obviously weakens it).  However, I don't have a lot of confidence in the answer.

because your answer doesn't strengthen the argument that not all supernovas create neutron stars. our answer does- it proves that our methods are indeed capable of detecting such stars, even the ones that are farther away.

Wait, I'm so confused.  So saying by saying that the first time that there was a supernova and it didn't create a neutron star DOESN'T strengthen the argument that supernovas don't always create neutron stars.  I mean if it's the first time and it doesn't do it, then it must not always do it.  I have to be approaching this wrong.

I dont understand your answer choice, so please explain. It was the first time they observed it? so what, how does it strengthen the argument?

Maybe I don't remember the question that well.  Anyway I thought it worked like this: there was a supernova and the didn't find a neutron star.  Therefore the theory that supernovas create neutron stars must be wrong.  Then it asked which answer choice strengthened that rationality.  The answer choice I selected was it was the first time that they had observed a supernova.  Therefore, if it was the first time and the supernova didn't create the neutron star as they theorized, this obviously strengthened the argument that they were wrong (supporting the argument in the stimulus).

So

Theory

Cause: supernova  Effect: Neutron Star

What happened:  Cause: Supernova  Effect:  Neutron Star

Answer:  It was the first time this happened (cause and effect).  Thus proving the initial cause and effect relationship doesn't always exist and is therefore wrong.

[westcoast5467]

To strengthen their rationality, you have to state a condition that disproves the theory.

If the scientists had observed the supernova explode, and did not see the condition about its surrounding, then their direct observation would disprove the theory.