Astronauts who experience weightlessness frequently get motion sicknes

Premise - The astronauts’ experience is best explained by the hypothesis that conflicting information received by the brain about the body’s motion causes motion sickness.

B - no conflict of information
C - is against the premise
D - no conflict
E - no conflict

A explains that because people get a view with a water, the ship moves and the water moves so less conflict leading to less motion sickness and people with no view have conflict and thus experience sickness

(A) imo
_________________

Astronauts who experience weightlessness frequently get motion sickness. The astronauts see their own motion relative to passing objects, but while the astronauts are weightless their inner ears indicate that their bodies are not moving. The astronauts’ experience is best explained by the hypothesis that conflicting information received by the brain about the body’s motion causes motion sickness.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the hypotheses above?


(A) During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins providing a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabins providing no view. Incorrect

it provides a way how people get less sickness

(B) Many people who are experienced airplane passengers occasionally get motion sickness. Incorrect

additional information

(C) Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness. Correct

support conclusion, conflicting information received by the brain caused motion sickness

(D) People who have aisle seats in trains or airplanes are as likely to get motion sickness as are people who have window seats. Incorrect

new info

(E) Some astronauts do not get motion sickness even after being in orbit for several days. Incorrect

against argument
_________________

(A) During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins providing a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabins providing no view. -- This doesn't indicate a conflict. Or atleast I can't figure out how is conflict embedded in this choice. Keep.

(B) Many people who are experienced airplane passengers occasionally get motion sickness. -- Irrelevant. We need examples of conflicting information causing motion sickness not motion sickness in isolation. Eliminate.

(C) Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness. -- So inner ears indicate "they are moving" (but the pax in reality are stationery in the car), clear view of objects indicates movement -- looks conflicting information to me. And the choice says these pax get motion sickness. Eliminate A. Correct choice is C.

(D) People who have aisle seats in trains or airplanes are as likely to get motion sickness as are people who have window seats. -- No conflict here. Eliminate.

(E) Some astronauts do not get motion sickness even after being in orbit for several days. -- not relevant. Eliminate.

imo A
Astronauts who experience weightlessness frequently get motion sickness. The astronauts see their own motion relative to passing objects, but while the astronauts are weightless their inner ears indicate that their bodies are not moving. The astronauts’ experience is best explained by the hypothesis that conflicting information received by the brain about the body’s motion causes motion sickness.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the hypotheses above?


(A) During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins providing a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabins providing no view.



we are given a situation in which passengers who have no view of the ocean are getting motion sickness during a rough voyage. In other words, the argument is telling us that their eyes are sensing movement. However, we may be able to infer that - because of the "rough voyage" - their ears are actually sensing movement.

Thus, we have eyes saying "NO MOVEMENT" and we have ears saying "MOVEMENT." They get motion sickness! That looks good! It gives us the same cause with the same effect.

It tells us that these people with conflicting information are more likely to get motion sickness than people w/o such conflicting information. Awesome! This really strengthens the argument!

Correct


(B) Many people who are experienced airplane passengers occasionally get motion sickness.

wrong because it is very inconsequential and fails to provide enough information. "Many people" do "occasionally" get motion sickness who are experience airplane passengers. This is the first red flag. These words so inconsequential for strengthen questions. We want something with more force. This just tells us that a few people have a particular effect - motion sickness - too. That's great but that doesn't do much for us. In addition, we know nothing about how these airplane passengers' brains are perceiving movement: are their inner ears telling them that they are moving? are their inner inners NOT telling them that they are moving? Also, what is their view like? Can they see themselves moving against passing objects or not? We don't know the answers to any of these questions and we shouldn't make assumptions.


(C) Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness.

Option C is so tempting as it directly refers to the passenger's inner ears! Let's dig deeper.

Their inner ears indicate movement.

Ohhh we are CLOSE! What do we want? How do we want this sentence to end!? We want this sentence to say something about how they cannot see the objects moving around them. In other words, their inner ears say "MOVEMENT" but their eyes say "NO MOVEMENT." Let's read further...

...and how have a clear view of the objects they are passing to get motion sickness

Darn. This actually is telling us that there is no conflicting information whatsoever! Their eyes indicate movement; their ears indicate movement. Yet they still get motion sickness. This in other words gives us the absence of the cause with the occurrence of the effect. This not only fails to strengthen. This weakens! A strengthener would say absence of cause = absence of effect. This goes in another direction.

(D) People who have aisle seats in trains or airplanes are as likely to get motion sickness as are people who have window seats.

We can probably say that the people with aisle seats can still see the moving objects while the people with window seats definitely can. But what about their inner ears? Do these passengers have conflicting information? We simply don't know this information!

(E) Some astronauts do not get motion sickness even after being in orbit for several days.
This actually weakens. We can say that the astronauts will also see themselves moving relative to passing objects and will also have conflicting information. However, (E) says they DON'T get sick! This is basically saying that there is the same cause without the same effect.

Tricky question. Similar to a “mimic the reasoning” type question rather than most strengthen questions.

The author is providing a Cause and Effect Conclusion. He believes that the conflicting information received by the brain about the body’s motion is the cause of motion sickness in astronauts.

The inner ears (1 part of the body) is telling the astronauts they are not moving while, at the same time, the eyes (2nd part of the body) are allowing the astronauts to see their own motion.

The fact pattern that will most support this hypothesis is one where:

-one part of the body is telling the brain that the person is not moving

-second part of the body is telling the brain the person IS moving

-and you have the “effect” of motion sickness

(A)”During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins provided a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabin provided no view.”

Restating answer (A), the passengers during a rough ship voyage who do NOT have a view of the water are more likely to get motion sickness.

If it is a rough sea voyage on a ship, the body will be moving abruptly with the ebbs and tides of the water. The body will have the sense of moving with the ship.

However, because these passengers can not “see” any passing movement through the window, the “eyes” will not be able to tell the person he or she is actually moving. These passengers are not able to see “their own motion relative to passing objects.”

In the astronauts case: the eyes are sensing “movement” while the ears indicate “no movement.”

In the ship passenger with no window case: the eyes are sensing “NO movement” while the body is in fact moving with the ship on the rough sea voyage.



Although the exact details are a bit different, just like the astronaut, the ship passenger with no window is receiving “conflicting information” about the body’s movement. And just like the astronaut, the ship passenger with no window is more likely to experience “motion sickness”.

Answer (A) suggests that when the cause (“conflicting information about body’s movement”) is present, the effect (“motion sickness”) is more likely to occur.

In this way, the factual scenario provides support to the hypothesis that the brain receiving “conflicting information” about the astronaut’s movement is the cause of the astronaut’s “motion sickness”

Answer (A) best supports the hypothesis.

Posted from my mobile device

Astronauts who experience weightlessness frequently get motion sickness. The astronauts see their own motion relative to passing objects, but while the astronauts are weightless their inner ears indicate that their bodies are not moving. The astronauts’ experience is best explained by the hypothesis that conflicting information received by the brain about the body’s motion causes motion sickness.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the hypotheses above?

(A) During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins providing a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabins providing no view. - CORRECT. Yes, conflicting info is given.

(B) Many people who are experienced airplane passengers occasionally get motion sickness. - WRONG. Nothing as such is given about the conflicting nature of the info being given.

(C) Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness. - WRONG. No conflict in the info of ears and eyes.

(D) People who have aisle seats in trains or airplanes are as likely to get motion sickness as are people who have window seats. - WRONG. What about ears.!!!

(E) Some astronauts do not get motion sickness even after being in orbit for several days. - WRONG. Exceptions that can't be relied upon.

True that experienced astronauts get motion sickness but how they get it is what crucial in this argument - as is the case with any CR passage. The reasoning is given in the last sentence - conflicting info from eyes and ears received in the brain. So, which one of the five options give us that. Only A gives.

Answer A.
_________________