PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 18

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  This gives us a useful comparison on a ship. In a cabin without a view outside, the surroundings can look stationary relative to the passenger while the rough voyage produces a feeling of motion. Looking out at the water gives the passenger visual information about the ship's movement, allowing the visual and inner-ear signals to agree more closely.

  The passengers with that view are less likely to get motion sickness. That's the pattern the conflict hypothesis would lead us to expect: less disagreement goes with less sickness. It takes a different route from removing a view in the astronaut example; here, adding the outside view helps the signals line up. The common point is reducing the mismatch.

• B

  Experience with flying doesn't tell us whether these passengers receive conflicting motion signals when they feel sick. Their occasional sickness is another instance of the outcome, not evidence for this particular explanation of it.

• C

  These passengers feel motion and see the objects they pass. Sickness in a situation with those agreeing signals doesn't supply evidence that a conflict causes it. There might be other causes of motion sickness, but C does not strengthen the proposed explanation through the conflict described.

• D

  Equal sickness rates don't give us the helpful comparison in A. Sitting by a window also doesn't, by itself, tell us exactly what a passenger is looking at or whether the signals agree. We would want evidence connecting less conflict with less sickness; D reports equal rates across seat locations without establishing that connection.

• E

  The original says astronauts frequently become sick, not that every astronaut must. Some remaining well is compatible with that statement, but it doesn't explain why others become sick. We need evidence about the role of conflicting signals, not just an exception to a universal claim the author never made.