![\"conflicting](\"\/\/www.catharsisit.com\/hs\/files\/2021\/05\/conflicting-viewpoints.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
the first time you see conflicting viewpoints passages on act science<\/a>, it can be overwhelming. not only are you reading two passages instead of one, but you have to put together information from both to answer the questions. but like a lot of the act, these questions get a lot easier with plenty of practice (and careful practice!). in this article, we’ll take a look at what conflicting viewpoints questions ask you to do–and how you can ace them with no stress.<\/p>\n in conflicting viewpoints passages, on the act science test<\/a>, several different viewpoints or hypotheses will be presented on a specific scientific phenomenon. these passage are also known by some students as the \u201cfighting scientists\u201d passage because one of its trademarks is the presentation of two or more scientists or students duking it out over their theories.<\/p>\n the first few paragraphs will describe the phenomenon and the remaining paragraphs will outline each student or scientist\u2019s viewpoint. these passages typically contain more words than research summaries or data interpretation passages, so your reading skills<\/a> will definitely be useful here! <\/p>\n that’s what conflicting viewpoints passages look like in general. <\/p>\n scientists concerned about significant long-term effects of global warming discuss a geoengineering proposal to cool the planet.<\/p>\n scientist 1<\/strong><\/p>\n solar radiation management (srm) could reverse global warming by seeding the stratosphere with sulfuric aerosols (so4), recreating past periods of global cooling caused by volcanic activity. naturally reflective sulfate aerosols resulting from this seeding would be dispersed by atmospheric winds, forming a layer of fine particles that would reflect about 1% of sunlight back into space. on the basis of computer models, scientists have predicted that srm would reduce the amount of sunlight entering earth\u2019s atmosphere, thereby reducing global average temperatures. scientist 2<\/p>\n more research needs to be conducted before seriously discussing the injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. it will do nothing to affect co2 levels, and unintended consequences of srm are so severe that that it should not be considered as a possible “solution” to global warming. there is no way to experimentally predict the consequences of manipulating the atmosphere on a worldwide scale, as climate patterns simply cannot be isolated and manipulated on a local scale.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere would increase acid rain and have a drastic impact on earth’s protective ozone layer. one study concluded that artificial injections of sulfates could destroy between one-fourth and three-fourths of the ozone layer above the arctic. this could affect a large part of the northern hemisphere because of atmospheric circulation patterns.the sulfates would also delay the expected recovery of the ozone hole over the antarctic by about 30 to 70 years, or until at least the last decade of the century. a healthy ozone layer is critical for life on earth because it blocks dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.<\/p>\n adapted from: rotman, david. a cheap and easy plan to stop global warming. mit technology review. 8 feb 2013. and national science foundation press release 08-069. \u201cinjecting sulfate particles into stratosphere could have drastic impact on earth’s ozone layer.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n 1. both scientists would most likely agree that the distribution of fine particles throughout the upper atmosphere is largely maintained by:<\/p>\n a. high levels of co2 in the air. so what can you do to get conflicting viewpoints questions in act science correct? these tips will help!<\/p>\n this information is usually located in the very first paragraph. what is the main subject the students or scientists are studying? this paragraph will often include unfamiliar scientific terminology but don\u2019t panic! they are trying to confuse you, but you don’t have to worry because any new vocabulary will eventually be defined by the passage. locate and underline the phenomenon before you move on to the viewpoints. each student or scientist will have a basic theory in regards to the phenomenon. this opinion can usually be found in the first sentence underneath the person’s name. try and put yourself in each scientist\u2019s shoes. ask yourself, how are the basic theories different? how are they similar (if at all)? underline this information, as well, so you can easily reference it later. you could even jot down a quick summary of each scientist’s viewpoint, so you don’t forget. once you\u2019ve located and underlined the basic theories of each scientist, identify what data they are using to support their theory. are there any graphs or figures involved? make sure to draw on the figure exactly what is described by each theory and label it \u201cstudent 1\u201d, \u201cstudent 2,\u201d etc. <\/p>\n consider whether any of the supporting data is contradictory. for example, if student 2\u2019s theory is correct, does that make student 3\u2019s theory incorrect? if no support is provided for a theory, make sure to write \u201cno support\u201d next to the paragraph.<\/p>\n the main goal of conflicting viewpoints passages is for you to understand what the argument or conflict is about, and determine what is different about each point of view. as you carefully read and understand the phenomenon, basic theories, and support, it is also helpful to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. what needs to be true in order for each theory to be correct? what assumptions are the scientists making?<\/p>\n with those tips in mind, let’s go back to the question we looked at earlier in this post. as a reminder, here’s the question:<\/p>\n 1. both scientists would most likely agree that the distribution of fine particles throughout the upper atmosphere is largely maintained by:<\/p>\n a. high levels of co2 in the air. (click here if you want a passage refresher!<\/a>)<\/p>\n now, let’s walk through how you can use the tips to answer this question. <\/p>\n in this case, the authors are providing information about a particular way of addressing global warming, through the distribution of sulfur aerosols. <\/p>\n scientist 1 writes, \u201csulfate aerosols\u2026 would be dispersed by atmospheric winds\u201d and scientist 2 writes, \u201cartificial injections of sulfates could destroy between one-fourth and three-fourths of the ozone layer above the arctic. this could affect a large part of the northern hemisphere because of atmospheric circulation patterns.\u201d <\/p>\n in this case, there isn’t any relevant data, as there’s no accompanying chart or graph. now, you can us the information from the first two steps to work out the answer!<\/p>\n in this case, you already know that it can’t be b, because scientist 2 doesn’t include any information about volcanic activity. based on the passages, d doesn’t make sense either; sulfite aerosols are an example of fine particles and unlikely to be the cause of their own distribution.<\/p>\n that narrows it down to only two answer choices, but it\u2019s clear that only one answer fits best. click here to find out which one!<\/a><\/p>\nwhat are conflicting viewpoints questions on the act?<\/h2>\n
\n<\/a>
\n <\/p>\n\nclick here to unroll a specific example of this question type in the act science section from magoosh’s act science practice questions!<\/font><\/summary>\n
\n
\natmospheric co2 levels were around 275 parts per million (ppm) prior to the industrial revolution. a level of 350 ppm is the critical threshold beyond which significant global warming occurs; current levels are around 400 ppm. since co2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, even eliminating all co2 emissions immediately would leave global temperatures elevated far into the future. reducing co2 emissions alone is not enough to preserve our climate; further action is needed. preliminary research suggests srm may be a way to stop or even reverse global warming.<\/p>\n
\nb. global cooling caused by volcanic activity.
\nc. circulation caused by wind.
\nd. injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.<\/details>\ntop low-stress trips for conflicting viewpoints questions<\/h2>\n
1. identify what\u2019s being studied.<\/h3>\n
\n <\/p>\n2. figure out the opinions.<\/h3>\n
\n <\/p>\n3. circle any relevant data.<\/h3>\n
answering conflicting viewpoints questions with act science tips<\/h2>\n
\nb. global cooling caused by volcanic activity.
\nc. circulation caused by wind.
\nd. injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.<\/p>\n1. identify what\u2019s being studied.<\/h3>\n
2. figure out the opinions.<\/h3>\n
3. circle any relevant data.<\/h3>\n
a final word on conflicting viewpoints passages in act prep<\/h2>\n