A Take-away of inference question.

[EvanL786]

I found this take-away from 4 questions in 2 passages in OG13 , but I am not sure I am right. If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks in advance.

Take-away：I found that if there is a comparison between A and B in the passage, we can infer something about B from some features of A.

The 1st question is 130th RC question of OG13.
The question asks about the function of oligosaccharin, but the passage never mentions that. However, there is a comparison between oligosaccharin and the other 5 hormones. From the passage, we know that "Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific". Thus, we can infer that "oligosaccharin can stimulate a particular plant cell to become part of a plant's root system".

The 2nd question is 133th RC question of OG13.
This question is very similar to the 130th question and I think even the relevant content in the passage is same to that of 130th question.

The 3rd question is 100th RC question of OG13.
The question asks about the a study of the category of patients referred to in lines 21-23, but the correct answer actually locates at line 26-30, which is the study of Frazier and Mosteller, since these two things are opposite.

The 4th question is 101th RC question of OG13.
This question is also very similar to the 100th question and in my views the relevant information (line 26-30) in the passage is same to that of 100th question.

[RonPurewal]

what, exactly, is your question?

[EvanL786]

what, exactly, is your question?

I am so sorry that I didn't mention my question explicitly.
My problem here is that I am not sure whether this takeaway is right. I just put my reasons and examples and I really need the help of instructors to verify this take-away.

[RonPurewal]

for #130 you don’t really need the analogy; it’s sufficient to note that oligosaccharins have “effect[s] on the growth and development of plants”.
only one answer choice contains anything related to plant growth or development. (the formation of different systems within an organism is, very clearly, an example of “development”.)


[RonPurewal]

#133 is substantially different; it’s not based on the same idea. rather, it’s based on what humans might be able to do (“could be used to…”) with these things.
that’s pretty clearly indicated by the text within the same paragraph:
The five have so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops

from that text, it’s clear that, if these chemicals had fewer “simultaneous effects”, then they’d be more useful.

again, not necessary to use the animal analogy.

[RonPurewal]

as far as #100, honestly, all 4 wrong answers are so clearly wrong that you can eliminate them just by using everyday common sense, as long as you understand what the cited lines are talking about.

the cited lines are talking about, basically, studying patients who have disease X and no other disease.

a/ yep, it's limited to ... well, people who have disease X and no other disease.

b/ cost is not mentioned anywhere. also, simple common sense says that, if anything, it would be substantially less expensive to restrict the sample in this sort of way.

c/ the entire point of the surrounding context is that this ISN'T the best way. both before and after these lines, better ways are mentioned.

d/ we're overlooking LOTS of variables... namely, every other disease that these people might possibly have. in fact, the whole point is to overlook these variables!

e/ this stuff isn't mentioned anywhere.

no argument at all for any of the other choices, provided you have a reasonably clear understanding of what these lines are saying. on many questions, you can get pretty far with your own everyday common sense.

[RonPurewal]

#101, again, all you need is an understanding of the same lines + your own everyday common sense.

a/ this kind of study would yield less data, not more.

b/ cost isn't mentioned; besides, common sense dictates that this kind of thing would be less expensive all around.

c/ it gets rid of ALL other diseases. that certainly qualifies as "limiting ... variables".
win.

d/ the entire point of the method described in lines 21-23 is to EXCLUDE ALL "secondary conditions". so, this choice describes exactly what this method DOES NOT do.

e/ the author specifically states that this method deals with "ideal" conditions, IN CONTRAST TO "normal" conditions. so, we're not talking about the average patient.


so, here, you have 4 choices that are pretty much exactly the opposite of what the author says. you don't need to refer anywhere else for that.

[RonPurewal]

so, overall, the point is that you generally shouldn't have to search very far afield for the answers to questions--especially if you go in with your brain's "common-sense module" turned on and ready to roll.

of course, it's never a bad idea to be mindful of analogies; after all, the whole point of analogies is to enable you to understand system #2 by talking about system #1.
on the other hand, if you're going to use an analogy, it's also important to be aware of the limits of that analogy (which, if relevant, will be delineated very specifically in the text).