A research discovered that people who have low scores in physics tend

Here is the OE


Solution:

Step 1 – Analysing the stimulus and question stem
A research discovered that people who have low scores in physics tend to fare poorly in mathematics as compared to people who have average or good scores in physics.
• Findings of a research:
• People with low physics scores --> perform badly in Maths
• As compared to
• People with average or good scores in physics
• Inference --> People with average or good scores in physics --> perform better in Maths
The researchers concluded from this experiment that a flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
• Conclusion of researchers: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
.
Step 2 – Pre-thinking
1. The conclusion contains a causality. The flair in physics is responsible for doing well in Maths.
2. Since we have identified this as a causal argument, let us use the framework for causal arguments to come up with the assumption/s
3. Framework:
a. Identify the Causality
i. Causality
1. Cause: flair in physics
2. Effect: doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
b. Guidelines #1: X happened before Y
i. Assumption#1: The author assumes that people .were not already doing well in Maths and other pure science subjects before they developed a flair in physics.
c. Guideline #2: No alternate cause can lead to the stated effect
i. Assumption#2: The author assumes that nothing other than a flair in physics helped people to do well in Maths and other pure science
d. Guideline#3: No reverse causality
i. Assumption #3: The author also assumes that being good in Maths and other pure science subjects did not help people to develop a flair in physics.
________________________________________
A. Those who do well in physics do better in mathematics than in pure science.
Option A Feedback:
The comparison is not between the performance in Maths and the performance in pure science and how doing well in physics helps more in the former than the latter. This comparison is not within the scope of the argument and does not impact the conclusion in any way. Out of scope.
Incorrect Choice.

B. People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics.
Your Selection
Option B Feedback:
The conclusion is: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
Thus “People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics” does support the conclusion. However, this choice is not a must be true condition. Let’s try the Trial by Negation Test.
Negated Choice: People who do well in physics CAN fare poorly in mathematics.
Now even if the above is true, does it break the conclusion? Does it indicate that a flair in Physics cannot help in Maths? No. The entire thing hinges on the word “CAN” which is a possibility.
Thus, this choice is not an assumption.
Incorrect Choice.

C. Mathematics is similar to other pure science subjects in its nature and scope.
Option C Feedback:
The conclusion is about how physics helps to do well in Maths, etc. The issue at hand is not whether Maths is similar to other pure science subjects or whether the similarity is in the nature and scope of the two. This choice is thus irrelevant.
Incorrect Choice.

D. A flair in mathematics does not help people do well in physics and other pure science subjects.
Correct Option
Option D Feedback:
This choice is along the lines of pre-thinking assumption#3.
Correct Choice.

E. Learning physics at home on one’s own is not as effective as learning it in classrooms.
Option E Feedback:
Where one learns physics is irrelevant to the discussion.
Incorrect Choice.