Human endeavour — Advanced

Score: 0 / 10

Level 3: Advanced

Evaluate, justify, synthesise, propose — combine ideas, judge claims and methods (senior secondary style).

1. Evaluate the claim: If it is peer-reviewed, it must be true and final.

   A)Mostly true — journals retract papers only when fraud is proven beyond doubtB)Accurate for high-impact journals, which apply uniform standards that eliminate major errorsC)Peer review improves quality but does not guarantee truth; errors, fraud, and later corrections still occurD)False only for preprints; once a paper is peer-reviewed, its conclusions are fixed for all time

2. Justify limiting some research on humans without informed consent and ethics approval:

   A)Ethics review mainly protects institutions from lawsuits, not participantsB)Protect dignity, safety and rights; unethical studies can harm participants and undermine trustC)Low-risk classroom surveys should proceed without consent to maximise response ratesD)Consent is implied when participants remain in the study area after the briefing

3. A city must choose between funding a climate adaptation project and a basic physics lab. A values-based synthesis might:

   A)Prioritise whichever project has the lower upfront cost, ignoring maintenance and riskB)Defer to a single metric (e.g. jobs created) so the decision stays objectiveC)Fund whichever proposal arrived first, to avoid analysis paralysisD)Weigh urgency, risk, equity, long-term benefits, and possible co-benefits—no single formula fits all cities

4. Propose how to respond to a viral misinformation post about a “miracle cure”:

   A)Check primary sources, methods, conflicts of interest, and independent reviews before sharing; correct calmly with evidenceB)Reply with an equally emotional counter-claim so the thread stays balancedC)Flag the post for removal only; public correction risks amplifying the false claimD)Trust the post if it cites a clinic name and uses scientific vocabulary

5. Evaluate using only social-media likes as evidence that a health treatment works:

   A)Strong evidence if likes exceed 10 000B)Better than randomised trials for safetyC)Weak — popularity is not a controlled outcome measure; bias and selection dominateD)Valid when influencers promote it

6. Justify why anonymised peer review is common (even though it has trade-offs):

   A)It guarantees perfect objectivity in every caseB)It can reduce personal retaliation and focus critique on the workC)It removes accountability entirely with no journal oversightD)It prevents any conflicts of interest from being declared

7. Synthesise how funding source and method quality interact when reading a study:

   A)Disclose funding, then read design, blinding, sample, outcomes and replication—not either/orB)Industry funding always invalidates methodsC)Public funding guarantees causal proofD)Only the abstract matters

8. Critique “Science is finished once a textbook chapter is written.”

   A)True for all fieldsB)Textbooks never changeC)Laws cannot be refinedD)Knowledge is provisional; new evidence and better models update understanding

9. A team withholds data that contradicts their headline conclusion. This mainly breaches ideas of:

   A)Better typographyB)Honesty and transparency expected in scientific reportingC)Patent law onlyD)Social media policy only

10. Propose one way schools can teach media literacy alongside content knowledge:

    A)Avoid all newsB)Trust any .org domainC)Practice tracing claims to primary sources and comparing independent reviewsD)Share headlines fastest wins

← Back to hub