<p>This is getting really cluttered on the other threads, so I thought i’d start a new thread where we can talk about this question from the CR section of wednesday’s psat. Here’s my take:</p>
<p>The question said something like: “Some scientists have found evidence that sharp sounds _______ the body’s regulation of blood pressure…;(however?) other scientists have found inconclusive evidence that _____ the correlation”</p>
<p>Both of the 1st parts (impair + aggravate) work; the difference is in the second part. There are 2 ways to read the second part, yielding 2 different answers:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The sentence is saying that some scientists have found evidence of the problem, while other scientists have found only inconclusive evidence to support (buttress) the correlation.</p></li>
<li><p>The sentence is saying that some scientists have found evidence of the problem, while other scientists have found evidence that (though inconclusive) minimizes (i guess, in this case, meaning disproves/downplays) the correlation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The problem I have with #2 (impair/minimize) is that evidence can’t minimize a correlation. While a correlation can be minimized (though it still sounds awkward even in those contexts), the only thing that can minimize a correlation would be if the variables change. Evidence that scientists found cannot change the correlation, they can only support or refute the findings of the other scientists.</p>
<p>Anyways, I’m by no means an expert on this!</p>
<p>“Both of the 1st parts (impair + aggravate) work; the difference is in the second part. There are 2 ways to read the second part, yielding 2 different answers:”</p>
<p>No, even that’s incorrect, because you cannot aggravate regulation of something. If it was “aggravate blood pressure,” maybe. And that “some scientists did this but OTHER scientists did…” is reading way too far into the questions. The studies were not carried out with intent to disprove the other scientists. They were testing the hypothesis. </p>
<p>And the key here is that the evidence is inconclusive. They were looking for a pattern; they found none. The hypothesis was not supported.</p>
<p>Btw, you made up “other scientists.” it was along the lines of “studies have shown…” Another reason why the competition factor doesn’t play a part.</p>
<p>Reading your first post again. I realized that you’ve subconsciously altered it to support your stance. I’m pretty sure it was just something along the lines of “Some say” at the beginning. There are not two conflicting parties of scientists.</p>
I can see how you would think aggravate means “to make worse” in this sentence, however it actually means to intensify or make more serious.
Neither disrupt nor interfere would any make sense in this sentence. I don’t know what you’re talking about. >_>
Yes, but if this is true, you should be able to find at least one place that has “disrupt” or “interfere” listed as a synonym of aggravate, right? Please show me one.</p>