I am 100% pedant: now verified by independent audit.
The one that I supposedly missed was this one:
Question 15.
a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.
I said “valid,” the answer said “invalid.” My reasoning was that “It is reasonable to predict,” is the same as “We can predict.” Had the phrasing been “Every future examination of water will reveal…” I would have agreed that was an invalid conclusion. But the conclusion was regarding whether we can make a prediction, not the results of subsequent examination. The fact is, “We can make a prediction,” without any observations at all. I think THEY got this one wrong.
14/15 correct. Spockescent but not Spockeriffic.
I am 100% pedant: now verified by independent audit.
The one that I supposedly missed was this one:
Question 15.
a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.
I said “valid,” the answer said “invalid.” My reasoning was that “It is reasonable to predict,” is the same as “We can predict.” Had the phrasing been “Every future examination of water will reveal…” I would have agreed that was an invalid conclusion. But the conclusion was regarding whether we can make a prediction, not the results of subsequent examination. The fact is, “We can make a prediction,” without any observations at all. I think THEY got this one wrong.