This is how I understood this passage.

The "position" is not explicitly stated, but is implied. The 1st line says, "Researchers propose that creativity is no longer limited by intelligence above a specific IQ level". That means it was earlier believed that creativity was limited by high IQ. Meaning -ve correlation at high IQ. . According to me, this is the "Position".

The 1st line on researchers opposes the position, or in other words "calls into question" the position.
The 1st boldface (i.e. result 1.. some studies) says, moderate correlation for IQ < 120, and -ve correlation at IQ > 120. So this supports the position.
Result 2 (WISC-R)says, no significant correlation for IQ < 131. But +ve correlation at IQ 131 - 145. So This opposes the position.
The 2nd boldface (i.e. Result 3... CAT) says, insignificant correlation for most groups, but lower than those from WISC-R. So in a way, it supports Result 2 and hence opposes the position.

Option A and B talks about objections, whereas the fact is that both boldfaces are results. So A and B gets eliminated.

C indicates that:
1st boldface is supporting the position that the is called into question (by the researchers). So this part is TRUE.
2nd boldface is weakening something that opposes the positon. This is not true, because 2nd boldface itself is opposing the position. So, FALSE. Eliminate option C.

D indicates that:
1st boldface is supporting the position that the is called into question (by the researchers). So this part is TRUE.
2nd boldface is opposing the positon. This is TRUE as well. Option D seems CORRECT.

E indicates that:
2nd boldface is opposing the positon. This is TRUE.
1st boldface is weakening the position that the is called into question (by the researchers). So this is FALSE. It is not weakening it, rather it is supporting it. So Eliminate option E.


So Option D is correct!! Someone asked how is 2nd boldface supporting another result that is opposing the position? Well, the 2nd boldface (CAT result) is actually supporting the WISC-R results.

Hope this helps! Please let me know if anyone thinks otherwise!!

Official Solution:

Researchers propose that creativity is no longer limited by intelligence above a specific IQ level. Some studies show [b]moderate correlations between intelligence and creativity in preschool children with IQ below 120 and a lower correlation in children with IQ above 120. Some other studies (using the WISC-R) found no significant correlations between intelligence and creativity with the exception of a positive relationship within the 131–145 IQ group. Using a different intelligence test (CAT), the correlations between CAT scores and creativity remained insignificant for most groups but were lower than those obtained with the WISC.
What roles do the boldfaced statements play?
[/b]

A. The first is an objection that has been raised against a judgement presented by the argument; the second is a further support for that objection.
B. The first is an objection that has been raised against a judgement that the argument calls into question; the second is a support for that judgement.
C. The first is a result presented as a support for the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a result presented to weaken another result that opposes that position.
D. The first is a result presented to support the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a result presented to support another result that opposes that position.
E. The first is a result presented to weaken the position that the argument calls into question; the second is a result presented to support another result that opposes that position.


The position that the argument calls into question: a specification that creativity is no longer limited by intelligence at or above a specific level of IQ – That is, a moderate level of intelligence (IQ) is necessary to be creative, at higher IQ levels intelligence and creativity diverges and are not correlated.

Result 1 (first boldfaced part): found moderate correlations between intelligence and creative potential …… in children with IQ above 120 – Supports the above position (lower correlation above IQ120.)

Result 2: found no significant correlations between intelligence (using the WISC-R) and divergent thinking ……… within the 131–145 IQ group – Opposes the above position (low correlation among all IQ ranges, a positive relationship within the 131–145 IQ group.)

Result 3 (second boldfaced part): the correlations between CAT scores ……..lower than those obtained with the WISC. – Further supports result 2 - that is, further weakens the above position (even lower correlation among all IQ ranges than that found in result 2.)

A. The first boldfaced part (result 1) does not object to the position (judgement), rather it supports. The second boldfaced part does not support result 1, rather it opposes.

B. The first boldfaced part (result 1) does not object to the position (judgement), rather it supports. The second boldfaced part does not support the position (judgement), rather it opposes.

C. The second boldfaced part does not weaken, but strengthens another result (result 2) that opposes the position.

D. Correct. Fixes all errors. Result 1 supports the position and result 3 supports result 2 that opposes the position.

E. The first boldfaced part does not weaken, but strengthens the position.


Answer: D
_________________

Why the 2nd boldfaced part support another result.. It says correlations were lower than those obtained with the WISC..doesn't that mean there is lesser relationship between intelligence and creativity for a certain IQ level..So it seems to support the first boldfaced part's position..
_________________

Why the 2nd boldfaced part support another result.. It says correlations were lower than those obtained with the WISC..doesn't that mean there is lesser relationship between intelligence and creativity for a certain IQ level..So it seems to support the first boldfaced part's position..
_________________

i have the same question..Can someone advice ?

I have the same question as raised in the above three posts. I understand that result 3 weakens result 2 rather than supporting it.
Overall result 3 supports the researchers proposal and doesn't weaken it.
Accordingly option choice C should be correct.

No, Result 3 supports result 2 (not weakens):

A (the position taken): low and moderate IQ: correlation exists. Higher IQ: no correlation.

Result 1 (some studies): moderate correlation for IQ <120, lower correlation for IQ > 120: supports A.
Result 2 ( WISC-R) : no significant correlation for low IQ, positive correlation for higher IQ (131-145): opposes A.
Result 3 (CAT): no significant (even lower) correlation for low IQ ("remained"), nothing mentioned about higher IQ: supports result 2. (does not support result 1)

Result 3 is a support for result 2.

same question

Please clarify your question - the previous question has been answered here:
v11-209697.html#p1714076

option D says supports the second statement as per your explanation. However, It does not remove high score 130+ from consideration specifically. Thus should it not mean a lower correlation across all scores, even the 135+ category ( WISC).

If this is true then it weakens the opposing position rather than strengthening it.

The part "REMAINED insignificant...but were lower" applies to only those groups for which the correlation was insignificant as per WISC test. Nothing has been mentioned about higher IQ in CAT test.

I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. It would be great if you would specify where, in the argument, has the position of argument been mentioned. As I see it, A Proposal of Researchers is followed by results of 3 Different Studies. There is not even a single word talking about the Tone of Argument. Let alone a statement or something to denote the position that argument supports.

Moreover, OE assumes that IQ level cannot be higher than 145. This may be true. This may not be True. I don't know but OE along with the maker of question assumes that test takers knows that.
_________________

I don't see an argument here.

The first sentence is a statement, and then the next 3 sentences are descriptions 3 different studies. Where exactly is there an argument in this passage?

Thanks ! Greatly explained ..
_________________

I think this is a high-quality question and I agree with explanation.

I think this is a poor-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. My issue with this question is that the "argument" here is unclear. You only have a claim and 3 pieces of evidence that contradict each other.

The statement: "Researchers propose that creativity is no longer limited by intelligence above a specific IQ level" does not raise a position on the researcher's claim. Then we get 3 studies with contradictory points: "Studies...", "Some studies....", and "Using a different test...". None of these sentences indicate the author's view.

That means the only argument available is the researcher's proposal in the first paragraph. So, the argument 'calls into question' the anti-hypothesis: creativity is limited by intelligence at all IQs.

Your choice (E) takes the opposite position and, therefore, cannot be correct.