Confused over UMAT type questions (1 Viewer)

[kooltrainer]

im confused over sum types of section 1 umat questions. Some question tells u to infer, (like why this occurs) while others asks to find the fact ( no reasons to state why).eg, look at this question.

1)Botanists studied a rainforest in Nicaragua that had been ravaged by hurrican in 1998. They found that in the following 10 years, the number of tree species had increased by at least 200% in eight storm affected plots. Other plots not affected by hurrican showed little if any such increase. From this information, it can be concluded:
a)hurricans play an important role in ensuring the long term survival of tropical rainforests
b)when the dominant trees in an area of tropical rainforest are destroyed, other species are given chance to flourish
c)overall life of tropical rainforest is increased if larged areas are occasionally levelled to ground
d)the productivity of a tropical rainforest will be maximised if large areas are occasionally levelled to the ground
The answer is b).. and this question tells us to infer and why this happens.. but consider also this question:

2)A yearlong study reported that dieters who weigh themselves daily lose more weight than those who don't. After reading the report, Jane started to weigh herself daily inorder to lose weight. She did not change her diet or physical activity.Which of the following conclusions from the report misguided jane in believing that she will lose weight if she weighted herself everyday?

a)with combination of healthy diet and regular exercise, monitoring your weight everyday help you lose more weight.

b)dieters who weigh themselves daily are more aware of their weights and hence will try more actively to lose it.

c)dieters often acoid the scale because they fear their weight would not go down despite various effects

d)Dieters lose weight by weighing themselves daily.

the answer is d) which is stated by the article and gives no reason why this occurs.. how do u no that the answer is not b) which gives an logical reason why weighing daily causes weight loss like first question does. Do you understand what i mean.................. =/

 

[Mark576]

For Q2, then answer can't be (b) because Jane never followed that specific conclusion, i.e. 'Jane started to weigh herself daily in order to lose weight', so that implies that she inferred from the report that simply weighing herself daily will cause weight loss, which is obviously incorrect. The answer is (d), as she was misguided by this conclusion as a method of losing weight.

EDIT: Are you confused about Q1 as well?

 

[kooltrainer]

yeh, im confused about question 1 as well..if by ur theory, then none of the answers in question 1 are correct because none of them are stated in the article.. so to answer question1, u must infer and think which could be a reason for the growth of trees.. then if u can infer sumthing thats not in the article for question1, then why can't u do the same for the second article..
inferring that losing weight is due to dieters being more aware of their weight (answer b)

this is what i dun get , can anyone help..

 

[kooltrainer]

do anyone know??

 

[kooltrainer]

then tell me, how do u know the answer to question one is b.. and not a,c or d

 

[dolbinau]

Because no where can a, c or d be inferred from by the article. I would rule out c/d straight away. Then left with a and b. I would rule out a) as it is saying that hurricanes are important for the 'survival' of a rainforest, the abundance of new plant species is more for variety rather than survival so it has to be B.

 

[juggernaut]

Sorry, but isnt there a very simple way to find the answer to question 1.

They found that in the following 10 years, the number of tree species had increased by at least 200%

So the statemant = tree species increased, ie more trees

looking at the questions
a -> long term survival of trees... ok, its talking about life length of trees here, nothing about INCREASE in trees
c -> overall life of rainforest increased... "life" has no direct correlation to increase in trees (not mentioned in artice)
d -> productivity of a tropical rainforest will be maximised.. "productivity" has no direct correlation to increase in trees (not mentioned in article)
b - > other species are given chance to flourish .... looking back at our factual statement "tree species increased", this does correlate to "other species given chance to flourish"... bam, this is our answer.

I'm not familiar with all this infer jargon you speak of, but surely you can use logic (and a bit of common sense), for most of these questions?