Q26

[frankdio]

I found this question tough. D and E were fast eliminations. I felt unsure about the rest. The question asks us to weaken the authors "better test" argument...

[bbirdwell]

Well, what's this "better test" all about? When asked to undermine, approach the question sort of like you are working a weaken question on the logical reasoning section. Look for assumptions.

The passage states that the better test is to compare the indicators with the frequency of events reported in press.

Is this really a good test? What's the obvious assumption here? Let me ask it another way: are all events reported in the press? How would it impact the study if very few events were reported in the press?

Right. If we are interested in the "frequency" of events, then this would be a bad study. The author is making an assumption here that all events were reported in the press.

That's what (A) points to. If the press is super selective, and therefore reports fewer events than actually occurred, our study won't be reflective of what actually happened.

Does that make sense?

(B) is close. But we are not interested in economic indicators being covered by the press; we are interested in events.

(C) so what?

(D) does not weaken. Whether or not an individual event correlates to an indicator is beyond the scope of what's being discussed.

(E) so what? Something being difficult to do does not logically undermine it.

Does that clear it up a bit?

[griffin.811]

I agree with Birdwell. They ask which best undermines the validity of the "better test".

Well what is the "Better Test"?
Lines 65-68, comparing the theories (J-Curve, etc..) to movement initiated events.

A-Admittedly, I had to read through A and B twice, before I arrived at this as the correct answer, but if the press is selective about which events they report on, how valid would our comparison be? Imagine someone asked you to compare a theory of how fast MLB pitchers can throw on average to actual results, but ESPN only covers the hardest throwing pitchers. Your comparison would be flawed because the sample size you are comparing to is not representative of the population as a whole (MLB pitchers.)

So A is correct.

B - tough to eliminate under the pressure of the clock, but we are not concerned with press coverage of theories, just the movements. The theories are set in stone (some theorist has already come up with them). It is irrelevant whether or not they get press coverage, either way the theories are the theories and they will not change in relation to the amount of press they receive.

Say someone asks you to compare the theory of relativity and the the theory of gravity to reports on how fast a ball is thrown. Then imagine the theory of relativity gets better quality reporting than the theory of gravity. How does this effect your ability to compare the two theories to the reports on ball speed? It doesn't.

C/D/E - Irrelevant

[katl]

Well, what's this "better test" all about? When asked to undermine, approach the question sort of like you are working a weaken question on the logical reasoning section. Look for assumptions.

The passage states that the better test is to compare the indicators with the frequency of events reported in press.

Is this really a good test? What's the obvious assumption here? Let me ask it another way: are all events reported in the press? How would it impact the study if very few events were reported in the press?

Right. If we are interested in the "frequency" of events, then this would be a bad study. The author is making an assumption here that all events were reported in the press.

That's what (A) points to. If the press is super selective, and therefore reports fewer events than actually occurred, our study won't be reflective of what actually happened.

Does that make sense?

(B) is close. But we are not interested in economic indicators being covered by the press; we are interested in events.

(C) so what?

(D) does not weaken. Whether or not an individual event correlates to an indicator is beyond the scope of what's being discussed.

(E) so what? Something being difficult to do does not logically undermine it.

Does that clear it up a bit?

I don't understand the better test. Is it trying to compare the frequency of each economic indicator being mentioned with the frequency of movement activity? What doesn't "correlate significantly with the pace of reports about movement activity." Can someone explain in more detail why A weakens but B doesn't?

[gplaya123]

Let's try to understand the passage around line 65 before we jump in.
I missed this one too...

Basically, the author concedes that despite of fact that these 3 social theories suck, there are ample evidences that support such theories.

But, with "current tests" that scholars have used, they only resulted in contradictory interpretations (line 55).

Thus, author posits a new test called "frequency with media test."

Remember, all these social theories are designed to explain and identify causal factors of the social movement.

If these causes were actually there, wouldn't such causes have been also reported or identified or examined by media as well?
If so, it would definitely bolster the social theories.

Now, did you catch the unwarranted assumption that the author made? The author believes that if the causes were actually there, it would have been reported by the media.

But... what if media doesn't really care about socioeconomic stuff? What if those causes were actually present yet media chose not to report them? If the latter is true... such result is biased and unrepresentative.

Thus A is true: if press is selective about what to cover, then the result of "better test" is biased thus undermines author's argument.

Ok... so let's talk about B real quick: it says that it's possible some economic indicators does not receive same amount of coverage as others...
Ok two problems with this one:
first of all, we don't care about AMOUNT. We are more concerned with "frequency" or "pace."
Second, even if the amount matters... this is so weak! So some indicators don't receive same coverage. Can you be ever sure that such indicators include "social movements?" Possible yes! But Not possible to at the same time. This answer requires additional assumption that such indicators include events that are relevant to the social theories.

Hope this helps

[christine.defenbaugh]

gplaya123, I'm so thrilled to see you flexing your RC muscles by working through explanations for wrong answers! It's some of the very best possible training you can do!

However, you need to be extra careful to fully support your analysis with the passage! Your assessment of the tests used in the past, and their problems, is spot on.

But what, exactly, is this 'better test'? Line 65 tells us that it is a "comparison of each of these economic indicators with the frequency of the movement-initiated events reported in the press."

What exactly are we comparing?
"these economic indicators" - what is this referring to? What economic indicators? The ones just previously mentioned:

1) steady rise in median black family income
2) stability of the conomic position of black vis-a-vis white Americans and
3) unemployment data

VS
"the frequency of movement-initiated events reported in the press" - how often movement events show up in the news.

The passage indicates that none of the economic indicators "correlates significantly with the pace of reports about movement activity."

It is critical to realize that we are not comparing how often the economic indicators are mentioned in the press! We are comparing the economic data (the straight math!) to the news-frequency of movement events.

(A) undermines this 'better test' by suggesting that not all movement activity gets reported. That would mean that the new-frequency of movement events would be an inherently untrustworthy number, skewering the 'better test' comparison.

(B) talks about the press coverage of the economic indicators. We do not care about that! The 'better test' compares the economic indicators as mathematical data, it does not depend on how often they were mentioned in the news.

Does that help clear up what precisely the 'better test' is, and why (B) is not a weakener here?