Which Results or Models Support a Hypothesis (EMI 505)

Science passages on this test often give two or more scientists or models that disagree, then hand you a result and ask what it does to each one. The move is simple: read each viewpoint as a prediction, then check the actual data against that specific prediction, one viewpoint at a time. A result can line up with one scientist's prediction and clash with the other's in the same breath, because their predictions point in different directions. You are not asking which scientist is 'right' overall — you are asking what this one piece of evidence does to each claim.

Watch the conditions the viewpoints stake out, like a threshold temperature, a concentration, or a trend across depth or time. If Scientist 2 says a reaction runs without a catalyst above 60 C, and a trial at 80 C with no catalyst shows no reaction, that single result clears Scientist 2's threshold and still fails, so it backs Scientist 1's no-catalyst-ever claim and undercuts Scientist 2. The same logic applies to trends: three readings that fall with depth support a 'decreases with depth' model and break a 'stays constant' model in one stroke.

This sits right next to the EMI skill of spotting whether a test or prototype actually succeeded, because both ask you to compare a real outcome against a stated prediction rather than against your own sense of plausibility. It also connects to assumption-finding: before you can say a result supports a model, you need to know what that model actually assumes and predicts, not just what it concludes.