CARS Passage, Halp plz

[CoffeeintheMorning]

I know the passage explanation is presented on the website but I am still having difficulty interpreting the answer.

The answer is "Pre-Hispanic populations settled in regions with favorable climate, vegetation, and topography."

Suppose there is a strong correlation between historic distribution of pre-Hispanic settlements and regions with high human footprint values. In the face of such evidence, which of the following facts, if true, would most weaken the theory that pre-Hispanic settlements should be considered as an impact on human development?
Please choose from one of the following options.

• Geography is also correlated with human footprint values.
• Pre-Hispanic populations settled in regions with favorable climate, vegetation, and topography.
• European colonies seriously weakened pre-Hispanic culture and settlements.
• The societies of the pre-Hispanic era were not nearly as technologically advanced as today.

Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...ills-tutorial/e/the-human-footprint-in-mexico

I am really bad with "Reasoning Beyond Text" Questions... Any tips/strategies/advice? Perhaps you can list your thought process when answering these types of questions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Happy_Puppy5000]

I may not be able to help you since I am extremely weak on Verbal. However, I would eliminate D right away since the passage did not discuss Technological improvement, as it relates to today. (That is, the main theme of the passage was not about technological improve then, nor now.) I would also eliminated C since it talks about European Colonies affecting "pre-Hispanic culture." I would think it would not be pre-Hispanic (hope that make some form of sense.) Also saying that "they seriously weakened" is a bit too strong. When I did that question before checking the answer I thought A was a bit vague, so by that process I choose B. Again I am definitely not the person to truly help, but that is what I was thinking. The wording of the question was a lot for me to wrap my brain around, but I got it correct by process of eliminate.

Let's try to break it down a bit:

From the question stem...

If Pre-Hispanic settlements = High Human footprint.

Pre-Hispanic settlement = [Has an] Impact on human development.

Most weaken:

B is saying the factors that influence their [Pre-Hispanic] settlement is favorable climate, vegetation, and topography. If that is true then human development is not necessarily owing to the then Pre-Hispanic settlements, but as a natural result of other factors such as: favorable climate, vegetation and topography. Therefore, that would weaken the notion that it is really a result of the Pre-Hispanic settlements.

 

[efle]

They're testing your ability to recognize two correlated things are both effects of another common cause. AKA testing your ability to recognize a confound.

Causal: Humans like areas with good climate/vegetation/topography
Effects: pre-Hispanic settled there because it was so favorable. Many others would also want to be there, and leave footprints, even if they were totally indifferent to the presence of the pre-H settlements.

This provides a good alternative to the idea that pre-Hispanic settlements caused the activity/development in the area.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I know the passage explanation is presented on the website but I am still having difficulty interpreting the answer.

The answer is "Pre-Hispanic populations settled in regions with favorable climate, vegetation, and topography."

Suppose there is a strong correlation between historic distribution of pre-Hispanic settlements and regions with high human footprint values. In the face of such evidence, which of the following facts, if true, would most weaken the theory that pre-Hispanic settlements should be considered as an impact on human development?
Please choose from one of the following options.

• Geography is also correlated with human footprint values.
• Pre-Hispanic populations settled in regions with favorable climate, vegetation, and topography.
• European colonies seriously weakened pre-Hispanic culture and settlements.
• The societies of the pre-Hispanic era were not nearly as technologically advanced as today.

Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-pr...ills-tutorial/e/the-human-footprint-in-mexico

I am really bad with "Reasoning Beyond Text" Questions... Any tips/strategies/advice? Perhaps you can list your thought process when answering these types of questions?

The strong correlation between pre-Hispanic (i.e. pre-European) settlements and regions with high human footprint values suggests some lurking variable responsible for the association. One potential theory (addressed in the prompt) is there's something intrinsic to pre-Hispanic settlements that attracts human populations long after the settlement's original inhabitants are gone. That's how I interpret the theory "that pre-Hispanic settlements [have] an impact on human development."

However, we're asked for hypothetical information that disproves that theory. What existed hundreds of years ago as well as today that would lure populations (both pre-Hispanic and Hispanic) to a certain locale? The answer that best addresses that pseudo-question would be my choice.

To this point, I wouldn't have even looked at the answer set. I always try to get a very clear idea in my head as to what is being asked. Now that I have an idea, let's focus on the available answers, keeping in mind we're looking for the least wrong one.

C seems in direct conflict with the question we sketched out in the second paragraph. We're interested in the cause that affects both pre-Hispanic and Hispanic populations, not in the effects of one population on another. Strike it from the ledger.

D seems way out of scope. And it also again draws contrasts between the two populations when we really want to identify the thing that affects them both.

A and B both seem plausible on first blush. But which is least wrong? A is vague, and in itself doesn't tell us much that would answer our pseudo-question. The fact that it also contains the word 'correlated' is a red flag because correlations are mentioned in the prompt. Almost too easy.

B does the best job of answering the question, IMO, because a favorable climate would endure over the centuries and have an allure for both ancient and modern populations. If it were true, it would certainly weaken the notion that there's something about pre-Hispanic settlements themselves that determined modern day migration patterns. It would instead attribute both pre-Hispanic and modern-day settling to the weather, flora and topography.

I did do well on the CARS section (132) but I dunno if I ever had a formal technique. I just approached each problem like its own little logic puzzle.

 

[Dr.Sticks]

The way I see it, it gives you the answer
"distribution of pre-Hispanic settlements and regions with high human footprint values"

High human footprint values is the key
The only plausible answers are A or B

But A doesn't really answer the question which is
"which of the following facts, if true, would most weaken the theory that pre-Hispanic settlements should be considered as an impact on human development?"

So I would pick B..

Deeper Analysis:
Geography is also correlated with human footprint values.
Okay? This doesn't answer the question

Pre-Hispanic populations settled in regions with favorable climate, vegetation, and topography.
Yes, and the latter are all signs of high human footprint value. Which means there would be little reason to innovate/invent because not much is needed to improve life quality.
So this answer would weaken the theory that pre-hispanic settlements had an impact
Also some base knowledge helps; Look at places near the equator, many didn't have development like places like China, the Mid East, the Mediterranean..
Why? They had favorable environmental factors..
There is actually a correlation with the more favorable the environmental factors the less impact on development.. It was in a book I read.. Can't remember the name.
Anyways from some of my background knowledge, and basic elimination I can confidently say the answer is B.

European colonies seriously weakened pre-Hispanic culture and settlements.
This has Jack to do with anything, eliminate right away.

The societies of the pre-Hispanic era were not nearly as technologically advanced as today.
Yeah, but then this states that modern society innovated from pre-hispanic society, and so a very high impact on human development.
Question asks which weakens the theory of development impact not strengthens

That's just how I see it; Then again English is my strong suit, I do really well when it comes to complex passages.(hopefully I do well on the MCAT as well lol)