GED Free
Español Get the app
Menu

Working with Findings

Reconcile studies that seem to disagree, explain unexpected results, and apply findings to new situations.

Practice this skill 18 min Working with findings Leer en español
Key idea

What you'll learn

Science rarely ends with one experiment. Scientists compare their results with other studies, puzzle over results they did not expect, and use what they found to make predictions about new situations. The GED calls this skill working with findings.

In this lesson you will learn to:

  • reconcile two findings that seem to disagree, by finding the difference in conditions that lets both be true;
  • explain unexpected results by ruling out errors and spotting real causes;
  • apply findings to a new situation, such as using a lab result to predict what will happen on a farm, in a kitchen or on an icy road;
  • tell the difference between a careful interpolation and a risky extrapolation.

How it shows up on the GED: Science questions come in short sets built around one stimulus — a description of an experiment, a table, a graph, or two short studies side by side. Working-with-findings questions usually sound like this:

  • "Which explanation best accounts for both results?"
  • "Which finding would best support the researcher's explanation?"
  • "The students expected X but measured Y. Which is the most likely reason?"
  • "Based on the findings, what would most likely happen if …?"

Most are multiple choice, but you may also see drop-down, "select all" and numeric items. Everything you need is in the stimulus.

Words to know

Key terms

  • finding — a result that a study reports ("Fertilized corn yielded 30% more").
  • reconcile — show how two findings that seem to conflict can both be true ("Both are right; the studies used different amounts").
  • condition — a feature of the setting of a study, such as temperature, rainfall, dose or location ("Year 2 was a drought").
  • limiting factor — the resource in shortest supply, which holds back growth even if other resources are plentiful (water in a drought).
  • threshold — a level that must be reached before an effect appears (harm starts at about 0.05 ppm).
  • unexpected result — a result that does not match a prediction, a textbook value or an earlier study.
  • experimental error — a mistake or flaw in how data were collected (an uncalibrated thermometer).
  • calibrate — check an instrument against a known standard (a thermometer should read 0 °C in ice water).
  • interpolate — estimate a value between tested data points (predict the rate at 35 °C from data at 30 °C and 40 °C).
  • extrapolate — estimate a value beyond the tested range (predict the rate at 80 °C from data that stop at 60 °C); this is much riskier.
  • optimum — the condition that gives the greatest result (an enzyme's optimum temperature).

All Science words in the glossary

1. Reconciling findings that seem to disagree

When two studies seem to contradict each other, the GED almost never wants you to say "one study is wrong." Instead, it wants the explanation that lets both findings stand.

The method:

  1. State each finding exactly, in numbers if possible.
  2. List the conditions of each study: who or what was studied, where, when, how much, how long, and how it was measured.
  3. Find the condition that differs. That difference is almost always the key.
  4. Choose the explanation that uses that difference and keeps every reported result true.
Flowchart for reconciling two findings. Finding 1 and Finding 2, each with its conditions, feed into a box: compare the conditions, what differs? That leads to the answer: an explanation that keeps both findings true. Differences to look for: dose, environment, organism, time, place, method. Finding 1+ its conditionsFinding 2+ its conditionsCompare theconditions:what differs?Explanation thatkeeps BOTHfindings trueLook for: dose · environment · organismtime · place · method

Common differences: dose, environment, organism, time, location and method.

What a good reconciling answer is NOT:

  • It does not dismiss a finding ("the field study must be flawed") unless the passage gives a specific reason.
  • It does not invent a factor the passage never mentions ("the frogs became immune").
  • It does not contradict the data ("the pesticide is harmless" when one table shows harm).

2. Explaining unexpected results

An unexpected result is a gift to a scientist: either something went wrong, or something new is happening. The GED asks you to decide which is more likely, using only the stimulus.

Step 1 — Check for experimental error. Ask:

  • Were instruments calibrated (checked against a known value)?
  • Were the materials pure or the same as planned?
  • Were procedures followed the same way each time?
  • Was the result repeated by several groups or trials?

If the passage says the instruments were checked, the materials were pure and several groups got the same result, error is unlikely. A random mistake would not make four groups agree to within 0.3 °C.

Step 2 — Look for a real difference in conditions. Compare the unexpected case with the expected one. What is different? Location, pressure, temperature, organism, time of year?

Example. A class in Denver finds water boils at about 95 °C, not 100 °C. The thermometers read 0.0 °C in ice water, the water was distilled, and a sea-level class with the same equipment got 100 °C. Error is ruled out. The real difference is air pressure (83 kPa vs. 101 kPa). Lower air pressure lets water boil at a lower temperature.

Two thermometers in boiling water. Sea-level class, air pressure 101 kilopascals: water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Denver class, air pressure 83 kilopascals: water boils at about 95 degrees Celsius. Both sets of thermometers read 0.0 degrees in ice water, so error is ruled out; the real difference is lower air pressure, which lowers the boiling point. 85 °C90 °C95 °C100 °C105 °C85 °C90 °C95 °C100 °C105 °C100 °C≈ 95 °CSea-level classair pressure 101 kPaDenver classair pressure 83 kPaBoth sets of thermometers read 0.0 °C in ice water → no error.Real difference: lower air pressure → lower boiling point.

Step 3 — Match the explanation to the direction of the result. If the measured value is lower than expected, the explanation must push it lower. For example, impurities dissolved in water raise its boiling point, so they cannot explain a boiling point that is too low.

3. Applying findings to new situations

Findings are useful because we can apply them beyond the experiment: to farms, kitchens, hospitals, roads and ecosystems. To apply a finding correctly:

  1. Identify the relationship. What happens to the dependent variable as the independent variable changes? (More salt → lower freezing point.)
  2. Check that the new situation matches. Same kind of organism, material or setting? Is the new value inside the range that was tested?
  3. Use the numbers. Read the value from the table or graph, or follow the pattern.
  4. Do not over-claim. Choose predictions that say "likely," "about" or "would probably," not "all," "always" or "within a day," unless the data truly show that.

Example. Students find that 10 g of salt in 100 g of water freezes at −6 °C and 20 g freezes at −12 °C. A road crew expects −8 °C. Applying the finding: 10 g is not enough (−6 °C is warmer than −8 °C), but 15 g (about −9 °C) or more would work.

Graph of freezing point against salt in 100 grams of water. 10 grams of salt freezes at minus 6 degrees Celsius and 20 grams at minus 12 degrees; a dashed trend line joins them. A red line marks the minus 8 degrees the road crew expects. 10 grams is not enough; 15 grams gives about minus 9 degrees, which works. 0−3−6−9−12−150510152025Salt in 100 g of water (g)Freezing point (°C)road crew needs −8 °C10 g → −6 °C (not enough)20 g → −12 °C15 g → about −9 °C ✓

Interpolate, don't extrapolate. Estimating between tested values (interpolation) is usually safe. Estimating beyond them (extrapolation) is risky because trends can change: an enzyme's rate rises up to 40 °C, then crashes as it denatures.

Graph of enzyme reaction rate against temperature. Measured points from 10 to 40 degrees Celsius rise steadily; this is the tested range. An estimate at 35 degrees, between tested points, is interpolation and is safe. A dashed red line extends the rise beyond 40 degrees, which is a risky extrapolation, while the real curve, in green, crashes after 40 degrees because the enzyme denatures. tested range010203040506070Temperature (°C)Enzyme reaction rateextrapolated: “keeps rising”what really happens:enzyme denaturesinterpolate 35 °C: safe
Worked example

Worked example 1: Two studies, one explanation

Stimulus. Study 1: a vitamin supplement improved bone strength in older adults who got little sunlight. Study 2: the same supplement had no effect on bone strength in lifeguards who worked outdoors all summer. (The body makes this vitamin when skin is exposed to sunlight.)

Question. Which statement best reconciles the two studies?

A. Study 2 used a weaker supplement. B. The supplement helps people who are low in the vitamin, and lifeguards already make plenty from sunlight. C. Bone strength cannot be measured accurately. D. The supplement harms young people.

Think-aloud.

  1. Finding 1: it helped. Finding 2: it did not help. I need one idea that keeps both true.
  2. What is different? The groups: older adults with little sunlight vs. lifeguards outdoors all summer. The passage says sunlight lets the body make the vitamin.
  3. B uses exactly that difference: one group was short of the vitamin, the other was not. ✓
  4. A — nothing says the supplement differed; it says "the same supplement." ✗ C — throws out both studies. ✗ D — "no effect" is not "harm." ✗
Side-by-side comparison of two studies. Study 1, older adults: little sunlight, so skin makes little vitamin and they are low in it; with the supplement their bones got stronger. Study 2, lifeguards: outdoors all summer, so skin makes plenty and they already have enough; the same supplement made no change. The key difference is sunlight, which sets how much vitamin each group already had. Study 1: older adultsStudy 2: lifeguardslittle sunlightoutdoors all summerskin makes little vitamin→ LOW in vitaminskin makes plenty→ ENOUGH vitaminsame supplementsame supplementbones stronger ✓no changeKey difference: sunlight → how much vitamin each group already had.

Answer: B.

Worked example

Worked example 2: An unexpected result

Stimulus. A student predicts that a plant kept in a sunny window will grow taller than a plant kept in a dim corner. After three weeks, the dim-corner plant is taller, but it is pale and has thin, weak stems. The sunny plant is shorter, dark green and sturdy. Both plants got the same water and soil.

Question. Which is the best explanation for the unexpected result?

A. The student mixed up the labels on the plants. B. Plants in dim light can stretch quickly toward light, growing tall but weak. C. Sunlight is harmful to plants. D. The dim-corner plant got more water.

Think-aloud.

  1. Expected: sunny plant taller. Observed: dim plant taller but pale and weak.
  2. Rule out errors: the passage says the water and soil were the same, so D is out. A mix-up (A) would not explain why the taller plant is pale and weak — that matches low light.
  3. C goes too far: the sunny plant is healthy and dark green.
  4. B explains every detail: tall, thin, pale = stretching toward light. ✓

Answer: B. The best explanation accounts for all the observations, not just the surprising one.

Worked example

Worked example 3: Applying a finding with numbers

Stimulus.

Water temperature (°C)Sugar that dissolves in 100 mL (g)
20200
40240
60290
80360

Question. A candy maker needs to dissolve 300 g of sugar in 100 mL of water. Based on the data, which is the lowest of these temperatures that will work: 40 °C, 50 °C, 70 °C or 90 °C?

Think-aloud.

  1. The finding: hotter water dissolves more sugar.
  2. The goal: at least 300 g. At 60 °C only 290 g dissolves, which is not quite enough. At 80 °C, 360 g dissolves, which is plenty.
  3. So the answer must be between 60 °C and 80 °C. Interpolate 70 °C: halfway between 290 and 360 is \dfrac{290 + 360}{2} = 325 g. That is more than 300 g. ✓
  4. 40 °C (240 g) and 50 °C (about 265 g) are too low. 90 °C works but is not the lowest.
Line graph of sugar that dissolves in 100 milliliters of water against water temperature: 200 grams at 20 degrees Celsius, 240 at 40, 290 at 60 and 360 at 80. A dashed red line marks the 300 gram goal. Interpolated values: about 265 grams at 50 degrees, too little, and about 325 grams at 70 degrees, enough. 0501001502002503003504000102030405060708090100Water temperature (°C)Sugar dissolved in 100 mL (g)goal: 300 g20024029036070 °C ≈ 325 g ✓50 °C ≈ 265 g

Answer: 70 °C.

Worked example

Worked example 4: Choosing evidence that supports an explanation

Stimulus. Bees visited a field of flowers less often this year than last year. A beekeeper thinks a new building blocks the bees' direct route from the hives to the field.

Question. Which new finding would best support the beekeeper's explanation?

A. The flowers bloomed at the same time both years. B. Bees from hives on the other side of the field, with no building in the way, visited just as often as last year. C. Honey prices rose this year. D. Bees can see ultraviolet light.

Think-aloud.

  1. The explanation names one cause: the building blocking the route.
  2. The best support compares bees with the building in the way to bees without it, keeping everything else the same.
  3. B does exactly that. If unblocked bees visited normally, the field and flowers are fine, and the blocked route is the likely cause. ✓
  4. A rules out one other cause (bloom timing) but does not test the building directly; B is stronger. C and D are irrelevant.
Map of the bee study. Hives A sit behind a new building that blocks their direct route to the flower field, so they must detour and visit less. Hives B, on the other side of the field with a clear route, visit just as often as last year. Same field and flowers; only the route differs. flowerfieldHives AHives Bnew building✗blocked route: fewer visitsclear routevisits same aslast yearSame field, same flowers — only the route differs

Answer: B.

Common mistake

Common mistakes

  • Declaring one study wrong. Wrong: "The field study disagrees, so it must be flawed." Right: look for a difference in conditions (dose, place, time, organism) that lets both results be true.
  • Inventing a new factor. Wrong: "The frogs must be immune." Right: use only factors the passage mentions. If the passage never mentions immunity, that choice is a trap.
  • Blaming error when error was ruled out. Wrong: "The thermometers were broken." Right: if the passage says instruments were calibrated and several groups agreed, look for a real cause.
  • Ignoring the direction of the effect. Wrong: "Impurities explain the low boiling point." Right: impurities raise the boiling point, so they cannot explain a reading that is too low.
  • Extrapolating a trend that changes. Wrong: "Hotter is always faster for the enzyme, so 70 °C is best." Right: past the peak, the rate falls. Stay inside the data or follow the trend the data actually show.
  • Mixing up negative numbers. Wrong: "−6 °C is colder than −8 °C." Right: the more negative number is colder; −8 °C is colder than −6 °C.
Test strategy

GED strategy for working with findings

  1. Read the question first. Know whether you are reconciling, explaining, supporting or predicting before you dive into the stimulus.
  2. Underline the conditions. As you read, note every number and setting: dose, temperature, location, time, sample size. The key difference is usually hiding there.
  3. Rule out what the passage rules out. If it says "thermometers were checked" or "the same fertilizer was used," cross off choices that blame those things.
  4. Prefer answers that keep all findings true. Distractors often throw away one result or contradict a number.
  5. Watch absolute words. All, never, always, completely, within one day are red flags unless the data are just as extreme.
  6. For predictions, find the matching data. Use the row, point or study whose conditions match the new case. Interpolate when you must, and be wary of extrapolation.
  7. Check graph axes and units before reading values: is it °C or °F, ppm or percent, per acre or per plot?

Check yourself

Working with findings
Fertilizer Trials in a Wet Year and a Dry Year

An agricultural extension office tested the same corn fertilizer on the same farm two years in a row. Each year, workers planted 20 plots with the same corn variety on the same date. Ten plots received the fertilizer and ten plots received none. The same brand and amount of fertilizer was used both years.

Year 1 had 28 inches of rain during the growing season, which is normal for the area. Year 2 was a drought, with only 9 inches of rain. In July of each year, workers also measured soil moisture. The average soil moisture was 31% in Year 1 and 9% in Year 2.

Grouped bar graph of corn yield in bushels per acre. Year 1, with 28 inches of rain: no fertilizer 150, fertilizer added 195. Year 2, a drought with 9 inches of rain: no fertilizer 92, fertilizer added 95. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Growing season Corn yield (bushels per acre) 150 195 Year 1: 28 in of rain 92 95 Year 2: 9 in of rain (drought) No fertilizer Fertilizer added

In Year 1, the fertilized plots produced 195 bushels per acre, compared with 150 bushels per acre for the plots with no fertilizer. In Year 2, the fertilized plots produced 95 bushels per acre, compared with 92 bushels per acre for the plots with no fertilizer.

Which statement best describes how the results of the two years differ?

Answer choices
Hint

For each year, subtract the "no fertilizer" yield from the "fertilizer added" yield.

Check yourself

Working with findings
Fertilizer Trials in a Wet Year and a Dry Year

An agricultural extension office tested the same corn fertilizer on the same farm two years in a row. Each year, workers planted 20 plots with the same corn variety on the same date. Ten plots received the fertilizer and ten plots received none. The same brand and amount of fertilizer was used both years.

Year 1 had 28 inches of rain during the growing season, which is normal for the area. Year 2 was a drought, with only 9 inches of rain. In July of each year, workers also measured soil moisture. The average soil moisture was 31% in Year 1 and 9% in Year 2.

Grouped bar graph of corn yield in bushels per acre. Year 1, with 28 inches of rain: no fertilizer 150, fertilizer added 195. Year 2, a drought with 9 inches of rain: no fertilizer 92, fertilizer added 95. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Growing season Corn yield (bushels per acre) 150 195 Year 1: 28 in of rain 92 95 Year 2: 9 in of rain (drought) No fertilizer Fertilizer added

In Year 1, the fertilized plots produced 195 bushels per acre, compared with 150 bushels per acre for the plots with no fertilizer. In Year 2, the fertilized plots produced 95 bushels per acre, compared with 92 bushels per acre for the plots with no fertilizer.

The same fertilizer worked well in Year 1 but barely worked in Year 2. Which explanation best accounts for both findings?

Answer choices
Hint

Look for the condition the passage says was very different between the two years.

Summary

  • Reconcile conflicting findings by finding a difference in conditions (dose, environment, organism, time, place) that lets both be true.
  • Explain unexpected results by first ruling out error (calibration, purity, repeated trials) and then matching a real condition to the direction of the result.
  • Apply findings by identifying the relationship, matching the new situation to the right data, and using the numbers.
  • Interpolate between data points with care; be very cautious about extrapolating beyond them, especially when a trend peaks.
  • The best supporting evidence changes the suspected cause while keeping everything else the same.
  • Reject choices that dismiss findings, invent factors, contradict data or use extreme words.
Practice this skill →