Hormones

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct88% picked this

   present new

   Why this is right

   This is super bland, but it works for our Old / New type framework. Discussions of how hormones influence behavior have (in the past) generally been limited to how gonadal hormones affect reproductive behavior. However, it has now become clear that other hormones can affect behavior too. That's really the only textual help we get. The rest of the passage just delves oh-so-deeply into the specifics of how other hormones can affect behavior.

   Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   88%
2. B

   Out of Scope: question assumptions3% picked this

   question standard

   This almost works. If the first sentence had said, "It is typically assumed that hormones only influence behavior by gonadal hormones affecting reproductive behavior", then the pivot to "but now we see other hormones also affect behavior" could qualify as questioning a standard assumption. But there isn't any standard assumption cited. There's just a scientific tendency. Discussions have been limited to X. There has been a bias towards talking about X. Our author isn't saying that X is untrue. She's not questioning X. She's just saying we now realize that there's more to the story than just X.

   3%
3. C

   Out of Scope: reinterpret4% picked this

   reinterpret earlier

   The author doesn't reinterpret any earlier findings. The earlier findings, if we can even call them that, would be about how gonadal hormones influence reproductive behavior. Nothing in the passage talks about gonadal hormones or reproductive behavior, after that first sentence, so none of the passage is reinterpreting or revising anything about gonadal hormones and reproductive behavior. The passage is "adding onto earlier findings" with new findings about other hormones that also affect behavior.

   4%
4. D

   Out of Scope: novel theory2% picked this

   advocate a novel

   The author isn't advocating a new theory; she's just reporting our updated understanding. To advocate a novel theory is to say, "I think maybe we should look into the ideas of String Theorists more. Their math seems to reconcile quantum mechanics with Newtonian physics. I'm intrigued and you should be too." Instead, the author is announcing findings. - "It has now become clear that Y" - "Specifically, Z appears to play an important role in A." A theory would be a more hypothetical construct of ideas. This author is just telling us biological stuff we've figured out about human anatomy.

   2%
5. E

   Weak Match: new approach3% picked this

   outline a new

   This is similar to (A). When it comes to present vs. outline, there's no clear winner. Both of them feel fine, for a passage that laid out a lot of facts about hormones and the body. They are both better than advocate, which sounds more like the author is trying to persuade us of something that we don't necessarily have to agree with. But when it comes to new information vs. new approach, which is the better match? "It has now become clear that other hormones can affect behavior. Specifically, peptide and steroid hormones appear to play an important role in the control of water and salt consumption." This sounds more like new info. There's no new approach described in that sentence.

   3%