VR: What exactly counts as outside knowledge?

[Synapsis]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Sounds like a silly question, but some of these answer explanations seem to be drawing on some kind of fundamental outside knowledge. When are you at the boundary between using reasoning ability and just using outside knowledge? Here's an example. This is from TPRH Test 2, Passage I, Q4

4. Which of the following casts doubt upon the explanation of rainbows as presented in the passage?
I. A rainbow formed by a prism
II. A rainbow on a dry day
III. A rainbow in the presence of light

The relevant passage info is "By reference to relevant optical laws...the appearance of a rainbow occurs whenever a spray or mist of water is illuminated by strong white light behind the observer".

Now (I) is part of the answer because it doesn't involve water like the passage says. One might think that since the passage explicitly states that water is needed in combination with light for a rainbow, that (II) would cast doubt on the passage, and thus be a right answer. Turns out it doesn't, and here's TPR's explanation:

"Just because a day is dry doesn't mean no water is present"

Is it just me, or is there some kind of fuzzy line between what's thinking and what's outside knowledge? Someone can read this answer explanation and say sure, that's right. But anyone can look at any explanation and see why an answer makes sense. Maybe the more important question is, based purely on passage information and under timed conditions, what might prompt you to pick this answer that seems to directly contradict what is stated in the passage?

 

[wjs010]

Sounds like a silly question, but some of these answer explanations seem to be drawing on some kind of fundamental outside knowledge. When are you at the boundary between using reasoning ability and just using outside knowledge? Here's an example. This is from TPRH Test 2, Passage I, Q4

4. Which of the following casts doubt upon the explanation of rainbows as presented in the passage?
I. A rainbow formed by a prism
II. A rainbow on a dry day
III. A rainbow in the presence of light

The relevant passage info is "By reference to relevant optical laws...the appearance of a rainbow occurs whenever a spray or mist of water is illuminated by strong white light behind the observer".

Now (I) is part of the answer because it doesn't involve water like the passage says. One might think that since the passage explicitly states that water is needed in combination with light for a rainbow, that (II) would cast doubt on the passage, and thus be a right answer. Turns out it doesn't, and here's TPR's explanation:

"Just because a day is dry doesn't mean no water is present"

Is it just me, or is there some kind of fuzzy line between what's thinking and what's outside knowledge? Someone can read this answer explanation and say sure, that's right. But anyone can look at any explanation and see why an answer makes sense. Maybe the more important question is, based purely on passage information and under timed conditions, what might prompt you to pick this answer that seems to directly contradict what is stated in the passage?

Haha I remember this EXACT question. It was in math and verbal tips book right? Yes I remember seeing the logic in the answer and being like " really?" Technically they are correct, it's just probably not something you NEED to be thinking about. To me, it seems as though you sort of would have to use outside knowledge( common sense) to realize that you can induce a rainbow even on a dry day. That is why the question is so hard. I have yet to see a question like this on an AAMC. I think Ek used this question as filler, and its sort of unfair. Outside knowledge is basically opinions that can be used to answer a question as opposed to only using what is in the passage. Usually, just roll with only the things that are in tr passage.