Calvaria Major and the Dodo

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope8% picked this

   despite his attempts to use strict scientific methodology, Temple's experimental findings regarding Calvaria major pits were not carefully derived and thus merely

   Out of Scope: strict methodology Out of Scope: not carefully derived We can't really support these specific claims that he attempted to use strict scientific methodology or that his experimental findings were not carefully derived. The passage is just saying that Temple had a couple pieces of circumstantial evidence that corroborated his theory, so it lent his theory "the aroma of being true".

   8%
2. B

   Too Strong: impossible / most exact5% picked this

   direct proof of a hypothesis of the sort Temple was investigating is virtually impossible to obtain, even with the

   We're told that direct proof was unattainable for the hypothesis he was pitching, that's it. We can't amplify that into some extreme idea that "for this sort of hypothesis, direct proof is always virtually impossible, even with the most exact measurements and observations". This answer should probably feel inherently trappy since it's grabbing language from the beginning of the sentence they're pointing us to.

   5%
3. C

   Way Too Specific10% picked this

   in contrast to Temple's secondhand information concerning the age of the thirteen overmature Calvaria major trees he found, his experiments with turkeys and other

   The expression "semblance of rigor" is not specifically tied to 13 overmature trees or to experiments with turkeys. Temple had a hypothesis (a causal storyline) for why a certain tree was endangered. He gave this hypothesis a semblance of rigor (he gave it some slight corroboration) by estimating the abrasive force of the dodo's gizzard and by feeding pits from the endangered trees to turkeys. The author was not using "semblance of rigor" to convey a big gap in the scientific credibility between the info Temple had about the trees and the experiments he did with the turkeys.

   10%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   in his experimentation on Calvaria major pits, Temple produced quantitative experimental results that superficially appeared to bolster the

   Why this is right

   "Superficially appeared to bolster the credibility of his hypothesis" is the gist we were looking for. Naturally, because this is a correct answer, the part we like is hidden towards the back end of the answer choice. Can we sign off on this front end wording? Did Temple produce quantitative experimental results? Yes, he estimated the abrasive force of a dodo's gizzard, that's quantitative. He also had test results determining the crush-resistant strength of Calvaria major pits. That's also a calculable value.

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

   70%
5. E

   Too Positive6% picked this

   although the consensus among experts is that Temple's overall conclusion is mistaken, the scientific precision and the creativity

   The author is making a concession toward Temple, by saying "semblance of rigor". But it's not as positive as this answer is making it out to be. It's more like, "he wasn't a total clown", not like, "his precision and creativity are admirable!" The phrase "a semblance of rigor" is not really a compliment. It's saying, "This hypothesis was not totally unsupported. He was able to make it look like what he was doing had actual scientific precision. (But it did not)." The author doesn't say anything complimentary about Temple in the whole passage. The closest it comes is "dramatic and intriguing", but that's not necessarily a compliment when we're talking about science.

   6%