ACT Prep: Conflicting Viewpoints (Compare Scientist Arguments, Assumptions, Strengths)

ACT – Conflicting Viewpoints (Compare Scientist Arguments, Assumptions, Strengths)

ACT Conflicting Viewpoints Study Guide

Topic: Comparing Scientist Arguments, Assumptions, and Strengths

What This Is

The Conflicting Viewpoints passage (always the last passage in the ACT Science section) presents two or more scientific hypotheses explaining the same phenomenon. Your job is to compare their arguments, identify assumptions, and evaluate strengths/weaknesses—not to solve equations or recall outside knowledge. Example: Two scientists debate whether a crater was formed by a meteor or volcanic activity, each citing different data. This tests critical analysis, not memorization.

Key Terms & Rules

• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon (e.g., "The extinction was caused by climate change").
• Assumption: An unstated belief underlying a hypothesis (e.g., "Scientist 1 assumes the fossil record is complete").
• Strength of Argument: How well the hypothesis aligns with given data (e.g., "Scientist 2’s claim matches the temperature graph in Figure 1").
• Weakness of Argument: A flaw or missing evidence (e.g., "Scientist 1 ignores the chemical composition data in Table 2").
• Direct Evidence: Data explicitly supporting a claim (e.g., "The rock samples contain iridium, a meteor marker").
• Indirect Evidence: Data that implies support but isn’t definitive (e.g., "The crater’s shape suggests an impact").
• Controlled Variable: A factor held constant to isolate the tested variable (e.g., "Both scientists agree the site’s age is 65 million years").
• Confounding Variable: An outside factor that could explain the data (e.g., "Erosion may have altered the crater’s shape").
• Signal Phrases for Assumptions:
• "Scientist 1 assumes that..."
• "Scientist 2 takes for granted that..."
• Signal Phrases for Strengths/Weaknesses:
• "A strength of Scientist 1’s view is..."
• "A limitation of Scientist 2’s argument is..."

Step-by-Step / Process Flow

1. Skim the Introduction First
2. Read the first paragraph to identify the phenomenon (e.g., "Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?") and the competing hypotheses (e.g., "Meteor vs. volcano").

3. Why? This frames the entire passage.

4. Read Each Scientist’s Argument Actively

5. For each viewpoint, underline:
   • Their main claim (e.g., "The extinction was gradual").
   • Key evidence (e.g., "Fossil layers show a slow decline").
   • Assumptions (e.g., "They assume no fossils were destroyed").

6. Pro Tip: Jot a 1–2 word summary in the margin (e.g., "Meteor = sudden," "Volcano = slow").

7. Compare Data References

8. Check which figures/tables each scientist cites (e.g., "Scientist 1 uses Figure 2; Scientist 2 ignores it").

9. Why? The ACT often asks, "Which scientist’s view is most supported by Figure X?"

10. Answer the Question Backwards

11. Step 1: Read the question (e.g., "Which assumption is shared by both scientists?").
12. Step 2: Predict the answer before looking at choices (e.g., "Both assume the extinction happened at the same time").

13. Step 3: Match your prediction to the options.

14. Eliminate "Out of Scope" Answers

15. Cross out choices that:
    • Mention data not in the passage (e.g., "Asteroid size" if not discussed).
    • Contradict a scientist’s claim (e.g., "Scientist 1 says the extinction was sudden" → eliminate "gradual" answers).

16. Common Trap: Answers that sound "sciency" but aren’t in the passage.

17. Check for "Most" or "Best" Questions

18. If the question asks for the strongest or most direct evidence, pick the answer that explicitly matches a scientist’s cited data (e.g., "Scientist 2’s claim aligns with Table 1’s pH levels").

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Assuming you need outside science knowledge.

• Correction: Only use the passage’s data. The ACT tests reading, not recall. ⚠️ Example: If the passage doesn’t mention "plate tectonics," don’t pick an answer about it.

• Mistake: Mixing up the scientists’ arguments.

• Correction: Label each scientist’s claim in the margin (e.g., "S1: Meteor," "S2: Volcano"). Refer back constantly.

• Mistake: Ignoring the question’s specificity.

• Correction: If the question asks for a weakness of Scientist 1, don’t pick a strength of Scientist 2. Why? The ACT loves to swap these as distractors.

• Mistake: Overlooking assumptions.

• Correction: Ask: "What must be true for this hypothesis to hold?" (e.g., "Scientist 1 assumes the crater wasn’t eroded").

• Mistake: Picking answers that sound reasonable but aren’t in the passage.

• Correction: Every correct answer must be directly supported by the text or data. Why? The ACT rewards precision, not general knowledge.

Exam Insights

1. Most-Tested Concept: "Which scientist’s view is most supported by [Figure/Table X]?"

2. Trick: The ACT often includes a figure that only one scientist references. The answer is usually that scientist.

3. Classic Distractor: Answers that combine both scientists’ views (e.g., "The extinction was caused by both a meteor and volcanoes").

4. Why? The passage presents conflicting viewpoints, not compromises.

5. Assumption Questions: The ACT loves asking, "Which assumption is made by Scientist 1?"

6. Strategy: Look for unstated prerequisites (e.g., "Scientist 1 assumes the fossil record is unbiased").

7. Strength/Weakness Questions: The ACT often asks, "A strength of Scientist 2’s argument is..."

8. Key: Pick the answer that directly matches their cited evidence (e.g., "Scientist 2’s claim aligns with the sulfur data in Table 3").

Quick Check Questions

1. Passage Summary:
2. Scientist 1: The crater was formed by a meteor. Evidence: High iridium levels in rock layers.

3. Scientist 2: The crater was formed by volcanic activity. Evidence: Similar craters exist near active volcanoes.
   Question: Which assumption is made by Scientist 1?
   A) Volcanoes can produce iridium.
   B) The crater’s shape is unique.
   C) The iridium levels are not due to contamination.
   D) Meteor impacts are more common than volcanic activity.
   Answer: C) The iridium levels are not due to contamination.
   Explanation: Scientist 1’s argument relies on iridium being from a meteor, so they assume it wasn’t contaminated.

4. Data Comparison:

5. Figure 1 shows a sharp spike in iridium at the crater site.

6. Scientist 1 cites Figure 1; Scientist 2 does not.
   Question: Which scientist’s view is most supported by Figure 1?
   A) Scientist 1
   B) Scientist 2
   C) Both scientists
   D) Neither scientist
   Answer: A) Scientist 1.
   Explanation: Scientist 1’s hypothesis directly references the iridium spike in Figure 1.

7. Strength/Weakness:

8. Scientist 2 argues that the crater’s shape matches other volcanic craters.
   Question: A limitation of Scientist 2’s argument is that:
   A) Volcanic craters are rare.
   B) The crater’s shape could also result from erosion.
   C) Iridium is only found in meteors.
   D) Scientist 1’s evidence is stronger.
   Answer: B) The crater’s shape could also result from erosion.
   Explanation: This introduces a confounding variable (erosion) that weakens Scientist 2’s claim.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

1. ⚠️ Only use the passage’s data – never outside knowledge.
2. Label each scientist’s claim in the margin (e.g., "S1: Meteor," "S2: Volcano").
3. Underline key evidence for each hypothesis.
4. Assumptions = unstated beliefs (e.g., "They assume the data is accurate").
5. Strength = matches data; weakness = ignores data or has flaws.
6. For "most supported by Figure X" questions, pick the scientist who cites that figure.
7. ⚠️ Eliminate "out of scope" answers (e.g., data not in the passage).
8. Watch for "most" or "best" – pick the strongest direct match.
9. Conflicting viewpoints = no compromise answers (e.g., avoid "both scientists are right").
10. ⚠️ The last passage is always Conflicting Viewpoints – save it for last if you’re slow on Science.