Q2

[Djjustin818]

I understand why C is correct, but I can't rule out E. I inferred that another application of techniques involving radiocarbon dating other than their use in studying past earthquakes was "providing hints about the likelihood and location of future earthquakes" (L 12-14) Why can that not be another application?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you make a great point.

I will (REALLY) struggle to defend LSAC's thinking here.

What ARE the "techniques" involved in radiocarbon dating? The passage just sort of says they take a measurement of how much carbon 14 is left. Is that a technique?

The passage says, "Using radiocarbon dating, they measure how much carbon 14 is left". I think that precludes us from saying that the measurement itself IS a technique.

For instance, if I said "Using excessive flattery, I convinced Shelly to go to the prom with me." Was 'convincing Shelly to go to prom with me' one of the techniques of excessive flattery?

No, it was just the outcome of using those techniques.

So I think the fault, pun intended, of (E) would have to lie in 'techniques', whereas if it said "What are some applications of the data derived from radiocarbon dating other than their uses in studying past earthquakes?" it seems like your objection would be unassailable.

Sigh, are you buying this? Because I'm not totally sure I am. If anyone else in the community sees something else we're missing, let us know.

[doug.feng]

I think you make a great point.

I will (REALLY) struggle to defend LSAC's thinking here.

What ARE the "techniques" involved in radiocarbon dating? The passage just sort of says they take a measurement of how much carbon 14 is left. Is that a technique?

The passage says, "Using radiocarbon dating, they measure how much carbon 14 is left". I think that precludes us from saying that the measurement itself IS a technique.

For instance, if I said "Using excessive flattery, I convinced Shelly to go to the prom with me." Was 'convincing Shelly to go to prom with me' one of the techniques of excessive flattery?

No, it was just the outcome of using those techniques.

So I think the fault, pun intended, of (E) would have to lie in 'techniques', whereas if it said "What are some applications of the data derived from radiocarbon dating other than their uses in studying past earthquakes?" it seems like your objection would be unassailable.

Sigh, are you buying this? Because I'm not totally sure I am. If anyone else in the community sees something else we're missing, let us know.

I think the point of this question is to pick a question that could be answered by the entire passage. I don't think it is ever explicitly addressed as to how these techniques can be used outside of studying past earthquakes. Future earthquakes are never discussed, therefore, the passage cannot answer this question at all, which is why (E) is wrong. If the question seems answerable, then you might be inferring too much and making assumptions that are bigger than what can be made here.

[r.flotte]

Hello,

Can someone help me find out the the lines on the passage that support answer C? That would be really helpful. Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

The support for (C) comes from lines 57-58 "conditions like shade and wind that promote faster lichen growth".

To the previous poster who said that "future earthquakes are never discussed in the passage", they are mentioned in lines 11-14 as the original poster cited.

== other answers ==

(A) Although the passage implies that lichens encounter different conditions, we don't know how scientists' measurements change accordingly.

(B) Similar to (A), we know from line 44-45 that the intensity of radiation varies but nothing about HOW scientists ascertain that.

(D) We know lichenometry works best for earthquakes in the past 500 years but can't specify the EARLIEST.

[keonheecho]

Hi, for answer choice (E), I also had the same issue as one of the previous posters. Could it also be incorrect because 'applications' implies that the techniques are actually used, whereas just because something can 'hint' about something doesn't mean it's actually used for that purpose? Thank you

[AyakiK696]

I really struggled with ruling out (E) for this question as well. I think that, like ohthatpatrick said, it's probably the term shift from "data" to "techniques" that ultimately makes it incorrect; the passage never states that you can use the "techniques" involved in carbon dating for other purposes, only that the data from that specific application of the method can be used to predict the likelihood/location of future earthquakes.