 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Six statements
1/ I removed the leaves of young plants and they did not grow
2/ The stem carries water up the plant
3/ The heart pumps 225 litres of blood per day. The liver would need to make all this
4/ I cut a section out of a stem, and less water passed up it.
5/ All the blood that goes to the heart is made freshly in the liver
6/ Leaves make food for the plant
Choose
a/ a statement that is a conclusion
b/ evidence to support one of the conclusions
c/ evidence against one of the conclusions
a and b are OK, but c? I can see that 3 does not necessarily confirm 5, but it doesn't specifically contradict it either? With additional knowledge I can see why it isn't correct (the liver doesn't make 225 litres freshly, it recycles and tops up) but the statement itself isn't evidence against, is it?
I think its a badly constructed question, but I think 3 is evidence that 5 is not correct. It doesn't ask for unequivocal evidence, just evidence against it.
The liver doesn't really make blood at all, but especially not 225L/day
I think it's important to contextualise the situation, the subject, [i]subjects[/i] and societal factors when assessing whether response 3 adequately, evidentially, rebutts the hypothesis alluded to in 5 for the purposes of illuminating logical scientific reasoning at the appropriate stage of the childs education. One should picture the environment and the nature of the likely respondee. Ergo when the educator requires the respondee to further elucidate the reasons and justification for the selection of 3 as a examplar of 'non sequitur' one should imagine the respondee, rightly, countering "cos dat is clearly bollix, innit".
A crackers-bonkers question, tbh.
I have a PhD in biochemistry and don't get it!
a) 2, 5 and 6 are conclusions
b) 4 is evidence that supports conclusion 2, and 1 is evidence that supports conclusion 6
c) 3 is evidence against conclusion 5
I assume it's pitched at a certain age of child, not at us lot with our propensity to argue endlessly over minor technical points 🙂
Is the answer not 1? Leaves make food for the plant but cant grow by themselves.
/0\
Yep. The more I read it the less it makes sense.
1 and 6, and 4 and 2 work well enough as observation and then conclusion
3 and 5 could both be observations, or conclusions (not necessarily correct ones, mind) and neither is what I'd call contradictory evidence for the other.
I suppose the answer they want is that 3 is evidence against 5 because there's no way that much blood is made by the liver (the 225 l is pumped in a recirculating system, not a one pass system) and even the actual qty in the body (6 ltrs or whatever it is) is not made freshly.
But badly phrased for sure.
I dont know and I'm a science teacher (although I got bored halfway through reading the question tbh). Just write some numbers down and get on with life
Errr.....as nobody vomits, pisses, shits or sweats 220l of blood a day (well apart from that time when I had 2 wraps of pretty much putty speed and a dodgy burger) you can safely assume 3 answers 5.
Ohhhh, I mis-interpreted the question to mean that you have to find statements with evidence for and evidence against the same conclusion!
1 is evidence in support of 6.
I suppose you could say that 3 does not support 5, but not sure it's really true that the liver makes the blood. Blood cells are made in bone marrow. The liver makes clotting factors.
OK
6 is evidence for 1
4 is evidence for 2
3 and 5 are both bullshit, unless it's about human embryos or maybe some lower animal? (in which vase the liver may make the cells but 225L is probably way high)
I think I've misinterpreted staement 1 - I read it that the leaves don't grow when taken off the plant not that the plants don't grow without the leaves. So in my twisted late night logic that could be used as evidence that the leaves aren't the only source of nutrients for the plants...
Either way a badly worded question as you can't take any of the statements as evidence against another without introducing external knowledge.
I thought it was the spleen that made new red blood cells, white blood cells from bone marrow and the liver some humoral factors?
Is this the NASA test for the one way trip to mars?