What this deck covers
This deck focuses on Drawing Conclusions And Evaluating Claims, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for ACT Science.
Study Drawing Conclusions And Evaluating Claims in ACT Science with focused flashcards that help you recognize the idea, recall the key rule, and apply it in practice-style prompts.
0% Complete
Identify the term for a statement that can be either true or false.
Tap card or press Space to flip
Proposition. A declarative statement with truth value.
How well did you know it?
Card 1 / 145
Space to flip · ← / → to move · once flipped, → Got it · ← Still learning
This deck focuses on Drawing Conclusions And Evaluating Claims, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for ACT Science.
Work through these flashcards in short sessions. Try to answer each prompt before flipping the card, then revisit any cards you miss until the explanation feels automatic.
Answer: Proposition. A declarative statement with truth value.
Answer: Hypothesis. A predictive statement that can be tested.
Answer: Confusing correlation with causation. Assumes causation from correlation alone.
Answer: Conclusions should be based on comprehensive data analysis. Incomplete analysis leads to invalid results.
Answer: Empirical evidence. Data obtained through direct measurement or testing.
Answer: A consistent change in the dependent variable when only the independent variable changes. Shows clear cause-and-effect relationship.
Answer: Control variable. Kept constant to isolate the variable being tested.
Answer: Scientific claim. Must be testable through observation or experiment.
Answer: Assessing the quality of the evidence. Examines reliability and relevance of supporting data.
Answer: To infer results based on data analysis. Uses experimental data to reach logical outcomes.
Answer: It may indicate error or real variation; do not ignore without justification. Could be meaningful data, not just error.
Answer: A judgment based on evidence and reasoning. It synthesizes data to form logical interpretations.
Answer: Deductive reasoning. Applies general principles to specific cases.
Answer: A baseline for comparison without the treatment. Shows what happens without treatment.
Answer: Hypotheses are supported, not proven, by experiments. Single studies provide support, not definitive proof.
Answer: Y increases with X (positive association). Clear positive trend in all data.
Answer: Variables. Eliminates alternative explanations for results.
Answer: To assess reliability and reduce random error. Multiple trials show consistency.
Answer: Interpolation. Estimate within measured data range.
Answer: To assess the validity and reliability of the claim. Ensures claims are supported by solid evidence.
Answer: Enzyme concentration (independent variable) increased. Enzyme was the manipulated variable.
Answer: Claim. An assertion that requires evidence for support.
Answer: Light intensity. Light was varied by the experimenter.
Answer: The two conditions have equal Y at X=5. Lines intersect at that point.
Answer: Causation is not established without controlled manipulation. Need controlled experiment for causation claims.
Answer: A baseline for comparison without the treatment. Shows what happens without treatment.
Answer: Any difference is not clearly supported by the data. Overlapping ranges suggest no clear difference.
Answer: Deductive reasoning. Applies broad rules to specific situations.
Answer: It is supported by a large body of evidence. Extensive testing validates theoretical frameworks.
Answer: Confirmation bias. Seeking only evidence that confirms preconceptions.
Answer: Relevance of evidence. Evidence must relate directly to the claim.
Answer: The comparison is invalid due to inconsistent criteria. Changing definitions invalidates comparison.
Answer: Scientific claim. Must be testable through observation or experiment.
Answer: A third factor that changes with the independent variable. Uncontrolled factor that affects results.
Answer: Author's credentials and publication reputation. Expert qualifications increase source reliability.
Answer: A baseline comparison is missing; the claim is weakened. No control means no valid comparison.
Answer: Measurement method is a confounding factor. Different tools introduce systematic bias.
Answer: To infer results based on data analysis. Uses experimental data to reach logical outcomes.
Answer: Control variable. Kept constant to isolate the variable being tested.
Answer: Overgeneralization. Extending findings beyond appropriate scope.
Answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Assumes causation from temporal sequence alone.
Answer: Inductive reasoning. Moves from specific cases to broader patterns.
Answer: To assess the validity and reliability of the claim. Ensures claims are supported by solid evidence.
Answer: Peer review. Independent experts evaluate research quality.
Answer: Only what is directly supported by the given evidence. Avoids unsupported inferences beyond the data.
Answer: Evidence-based reasoning. Conclusions must follow logically from data.
Answer: Deductive reasoning. Applies general principles to specific cases.
Answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Assumes causation from temporal sequence alone.
Answer: Enzyme concentration (independent variable) increased. Enzyme was the manipulated variable.
Answer: To objectively test hypotheses. Eliminates personal bias through systematic testing.
Answer: Growth. Growth was measured as the outcome.
Answer: Logical consistency. Ideas must connect without contradictions.
Answer: Direction is supported; precise magnitude is uncertain. Trend direction is consistent across studies.
Answer: High dose reduces the response compared with moderate dose. High dose shows inhibitory effect.
Answer: Measurement method is a confounding factor. Different tools introduce systematic bias.
Answer: High random error (low precision). Wide scatter indicates poor repeatability.
Answer: Anecdotal evidence. Personal stories lack systematic verification.
Answer: Deduction. Uses logical rules to reach certain conclusions.
Answer: Deduction. Uses logical rules to reach certain conclusions.
Answer: Hypothesis. A predictive statement that can be tested.
Answer: Only what is directly supported by the given evidence. Avoids unsupported inferences beyond the data.
Answer: Proposition. A declarative statement with truth value.
Answer: Science supports or refutes; it does not prove with certainty. Science provides evidence, not absolute proof.
Answer: The comparison is invalid due to inconsistent criteria. Changing definitions invalidates comparison.
Answer: Empirical evidence. Data obtained through direct measurement or testing.
Answer: Evidence-based reasoning. Conclusions must follow logically from data.
Answer: Coherence. Measures how well ideas connect logically.
Answer: Overgeneralization. Extending findings beyond appropriate scope.
Answer: Science supports or refutes; it does not prove with certainty. Science provides evidence, not absolute proof.
Answer: A higher mean is not clearly a significant difference. Large error bars indicate uncertainty.
Answer: It must logically follow from the evidence. Must be a reasonable outcome of the data.
Answer: Validity. Measures accuracy and trustworthiness of results.
Answer: The treatment is associated with improvement versus control. Treatment group shows positive response.
Answer: Causation is not established without controlled manipulation. Need controlled experiment for causation claims.
Answer: Relevance of evidence. Evidence must relate directly to the claim.
Answer: Scientific method. Systematic approach to testing scientific ideas.
Answer: Growth. Growth was measured as the outcome.
Answer: Random error is high; precision is low. High variability reduces measurement quality.
Answer: Confusing correlation with causation. Assumes causation from correlation alone.
Answer: Deductive reasoning. Applies broad rules to specific situations.
Answer: Supporting evidence and logical reasoning. Strong claims need both data and valid logic.
Answer: The claim is weak; one outlier is insufficient evidence. Single unusual point is unreliable evidence.
Answer: Conclusions should be based on comprehensive data analysis. Incomplete analysis leads to invalid results.
Answer: The effect is not consistently replicated across labs. Different labs got different results.
Answer: Fallacy. An error in logic or reasoning structure.
Answer: Extrapolation. Prediction beyond measured data range.
Answer: It reduces the influence of random variation. More data points reduce random error.
Answer: The claim is not reliably supported as stated. Contradictory evidence weakens support.
Answer: It is an extrapolation and may be unreliable. Prediction beyond data is uncertain.
Answer: Replication of results. Independent studies should yield similar results.
Answer: High precision but low accuracy (systematic error). Consistent bias in measurements.
Answer: It reduces the influence of random variation. More data points reduce random error.
Answer: Correlation (association), not necessarily causation. Co-variation doesn't prove causation.
Answer: Variables. Eliminates alternative explanations for results.
Answer: Support is weak due to very small sample size. Too few subjects for reliable conclusions.
Answer: Correlation (association), not necessarily causation. Co-variation doesn't prove causation.
Answer: The claim cannot be properly evaluated without variable identity and units. Missing labels prevent meaningful evaluation.
Answer: The hypothesis is supported, not confirmed as the only explanation. Other explanations remain possible.
Answer: The two conditions have equal Y at X=5. Lines intersect at that point.
Answer: Verifying the evidence. Confirms the accuracy of supporting data.