2011 UMAT Question Thread

[luken93]

Yeah I'd say C as well, because there is a clear difference between the two lines?

When No minerals is rising, Minerals is rising even more
When No Minerals is flat, Minerals is still rising slightly
When No Minerals is lowering, Minerals remains steady

You can think about it as though Mineral Gradient = No Minerals Gradient + 2 Gradient

[Graphite]

These questions are killing me. They completely lost me with this experiment...

[Graphite]

This question is so confusing. I don't understand what they are talking about with growing number of children and ratio of wage earners to non wage earners. The answer doesn't seem to relate to the passage much.

[nacho]

first one is A i believe, pretty easy if you look at it.
It says "key outcome from teh study was that the mode of testimony did not have a meaningful impact on the jury outcomes. Nor was there any coinsistent impact on the jurors' perceptions or discisions from the victim's presentation style"
If this was the key outcome, then it means that they were 'investigating  whether the mode of victim testimony...." Hence A
- If this doesn't make sense to you, think of it this scenario that I made up:
" I conduct an experiment, in which i am investigating whether aggravated bees sting more on average than normal bees.
- I seperate the aggravated and normal bees. Then, I put a dummy in each one for 10 minutes.
- After 10 minutes, i take the dummies out and count the number of stings in each one.
- The outcome of the experiment shows that the aggravated bees stung more on average, than the normal bees. "
^ from this, If i took out the first part, about what i am investigating, could you not deduce from my outcome ("Aggravated bees stung more...") what I was investigating?  Sorry if i confused you more
________________
2nd question can be deduced when u have the first question. As the end of the first question's answer states that "affects the verdict passed by a jury".
With that, you can immediately rule out B and D as they have practically nothing to do with the purpose of investigation. You are then left with A and C.
To figure out the best answer from here, use the table. If it were "A", why would they provide us with the other crimes? And how can you conclude that 64% of verdicts are passed as guilty 'is too few' - that would be a personal opinion, right ?
Therefore the best option is C.
_________________
3rd question, key here is the word least. Age can be a factor can't it? Is a 5 year old likely to respond in the same way as a 35 year old? Of course not, so A would obviously have an impact on results (And we can rule it out).
B - This would also have a big impact. If you have a group of 30 potential jurors, and select the most unsympathetic ones, then your result will differ obviously, - ruled out.
C - This confused me, I had to look at medentry's sample answer which was adaqueate. (kinda silly to get confused here, but it seems so obvious that this answer is stupid lol).
D - Increasing participants would increase the accuracy, but i was consued as to why it would least effect the validity. (If it increases validity, it still has an effect on the validity of results, correct?) To be honest, i would have juggled between C and D.

[Graphite]

2nd question C and A are hard to pick between
3rd question C and D are hard to pick between
You are right about D though, as it increase accuracy and validity it doesn't mean it won't change much unless you assume the initial trial was accurate

[Graphite]

This question is hard to understand. Doesn't A, B, C all need to be assumed for the validity of results?

[shinny]

It already explains A and B on the side, but I'll go a bit more in depth. A's pretty easy to rule out because the passage nor common sense really shows that this method is definitively 'easier to monitor'. Rather, I'd say it's more accurate because the controls are therefore identical to the test groups but that's besides the point. I'm a bit iffy about B. The answer says that the passage doesn't suggest that it's true, but it's not like it suggests C is either. However, given that they don't know whether they're taking the drug or the placebo, who cares if they know it's a cross-over. If they don't know which drug is which anyway, then it shouldn't matter too much. Given that there's doubt, then C is really the 'best' answer. You'll see this often in section 1 where multiple answers seem slightly correct but it's your job to pick the best of them. The issue mentioned in C immediately sprung to mind when I was reading the passage anyway so it's definitely the one I would've chosen immediately upon seeing the answers.

[Graphite]

Thanks Shinny your answer beats Medentry anytime haha

[Graphite]

This question is so confusing. I don't understand what they are talking about with growing number of children and ratio of wage earners to non wage earners. The answer doesn't seem to relate to the passage much.

Can someone please help me out with this?

[nacho]

okay, first ill show you how i derived the answer.
Upon first inspection of the options, i immediately ruled out
- D for the reason that there is a sentence which says "Despite the ageing populatiuon, however, the ratio of wage earners to non-wage earners is similar to what it was in the 1950s "

- C because of : "Of particular concern is the anticipated increase in costs associated with the care and income support of a rapidly growing aged population and how much australians will be willing or able to pay"

Then, I was left with A and B for which i had a second inspection.
The last sentence answers this question, "In that decade (1950), although there were fewer retirees to every working-age adult, there were also more children (than there are now)  <-- crucial sentence. If there were more children to working-age adults in the 1950s than there are now, and the ratio of wage-earners to non-wage earners is similar to 1950, what does that mean? It means that the PERCENTAGE of children has fallen, but, there is absolutely no way to deduce that we have less children now than in the 1950s.

-   we only know about ratios ( which state that there were more children to working adults in the 1950's than there are now) and we are not given figures relating to the current and previous population

[Graphite]

I still don't understand how to deduce the percentage of children in the population. We are given a ratio of wage earner to non wage earners and children to wage earners. So can you tell me what wage earner to non wage earner ratio being constant implies?
If the ratio of children to wage earner increase, so it simply means there are more children per wage earner, how does the percentage fall because of that? How do we account for the 'population' as the question states(i.e. everyone)

[nacho]

If the ratio of children to wage earner increase, so it simply means there are more children per wage earner, how does the percentage fall because of that?

that's not quite it.
Just for the sake of explanation, let's say it is comparing 1950 to 2011.
It says

Despite the ageing population, however, the ratio of wage earners to non-wage earners is similar to what ti was in the 1950s

^ okay, it helps to imagine that the aged population and children are non-wage earners.
You can actually deduce the answer right here right now, because:
- we know we have an increase in the ageing population as stated:

Of particular concern... rapidly growing aged population

- and it is also stated that the ratio of non-wage earners to wag-earners
is roughly the same.
SO:
If the aged population has increased, and we have still maintained an equal ratio between non-wage and wage earners
THEN, to balance this, the ratio of children must have decreased. The decrease in ratio means there is a decrease in percentage that children account in 2011.
Do you get what i'm saying?
I'll try and explain with the use of figures.
for example: Wage earning population = 50%, non-wage (comprises of elderly people - who make up 50% of non-wage earners (and thus 25% of population)  and young children who make up the other 50% of nonwage earners) = 50%

therefore, we have a 1:1 ratio between wage earners: non-wage earners, and to children:elderly people
NOW, it says that the elderly population is rapidly increasing in 2011,
YET, our ratio between non-wage and wage earners is still roughly the same. This means, we have the same 1:1 ratio between non-wage and wage earners, but not between elderly and young children.
So, our 1:1 ratio between elderly and children, has now become, for example a 2:1 ratio.
For every 2 elderly people, there is 1 child.
Where as before it was: for every 1 elderly person, there is one child.

The reason for it not being A, is because we can't actually deduce how many children we have now from the information provided.
Our population in 1950 could have been of 1 million, where as now it is 25 million. So we could still maintain a lower ratio of children to elderly people, yet have more children than we did in 1950.

Hope this makes sense, sorry if i confused you

[Graphite]

You explanation is fantastic! Thank you nacho!

[Graphite]

Stumped on another question already
Answers:CBCDA

[nacho]

First Q, Answer is in the sentence:

The interplay between fauna and flora is a relationship that lies at the very heart of Aboriginal knowledege and use of the environment. Non-indigenous people have largely ignored such relationships because of preoccupation with detail of individual species.

hope that is clear enough

Question 2:
I was actually stumped for a moment, because i swore that the answers could be either A or C
given the secondsentece:

Each season is heralded by distinct changes in faunal (animal), floral (plant) and climatic conditions.

Obviously, it cannot be two answers though.
So, if you read on, you come accross:

The condition of food sources correlates very closely with seasonal movements of Yolgnu populations.

hence the answer "responses of Aboriginal people to changes in food sources"
Even then though, i'd be pretty hesistant in the actual exam to put that down, i thought it was pretty vague.
But, if you think about it this way:
- climatic conditions will cause changes in food source
- changes in flora and fauna will also cause change in food source
so it makes sense.

q3.
this is pretty easy, just don't get all muddled up in trying to remember the long-ass names provided.
all you do is, go to diagram, read the bolded words.
As it turns out:

Dharratharramirri: the eraly dry season in May-July including the time of the birth of sharks and stringrays...

HEnce D.

q4.
You can rule out B I guess, none of the other seasons correspond to the non-indigenous calendar (e.g. we do not have a fruiting season)
hmm..
you can see that Ngathangamakuling-amirri is a subset for Midawarr
And so..Im not sure if i would have got this right, cause i glanced at the answers and remembered the last answer..
intersting, all i could conlcude is that
since it is within the march-april period, then there is not a major change in the weather.