ACT Graph: Understanding Data Points & Atmospheric Layers

[JFS321]

All, I hope this is in the right forum.

I'm a bit embarrassed that I cannot make sense of this graph.

My question is this: When looking at the graph, should you ONLY be reading data points from the two lines -- but also reading the lines independently? I am at a loss why the atmospheric layers are shown with wavy lines. For example, in the middle of the graph, the mesosphere layer is very thin, yet it expands widely near each axis. What am I missing?

 

[anorlunda]

The horizontal axis is not labelled. Without that, I too have no idea what I'm looking at. Can you post a link to the source?

 

[berkeman]

All, I hope this is in the right forum.

I'm a bit embarrassed that I cannot make sense of this graph.

My question is this: When looking at the graph, should you ONLY be reading data points from the two lines -- but also reading the lines independently? I am at a loss why the atmospheric layers are shown with wavy lines. For example, in the middle of the graph, the mesosphere layer is very thin, yet it expands widely near each axis. What am I missing?

And by "ACT" do you mean the standardized exam ACT? Or does the acronym have a different meaning in this thread?

Does this help? https://magoosh.com/hs/act/act-study-tips/2016/act-science-graphs-and-tables/

 

[JFS321]

I am high school science teacher with an ACT class. Yes, the standardized exam.

See page 46 of this file for more context...
http://www.lakeholcombe.k12.wi.us/uploads/1/0/4/0/10408064/act_practice_test_2.pdf

 

[berkeman]

See page 46 of this file for more context...
http://www.lakeholcombe.k12.wi.us/uploads/1/0/4/0/10408064/act_practice_test_2.pdf

 

[anorlunda]

I am high school science teacher with an ACT class. Yes, the standardized exam.

See page 46 of this file for more context...
http://www.lakeholcombe.k12.wi.us/uploads/1/0/4/0/10408064/act_practice_test_2.pdf

After reading the description on page 46, I understand nothing. No wonder you're confused.

 

[berkeman]

+1.0

Also, the graph appears to have errors. The bottom of the graph is labeled "Ground", but clearly 1ATM of pressure is at the top of the graph (about 15psi), and the warmer temperatures are at the top of the graph. "Ground" should be labeled at the top of the graph, or it should be inverted top-to-bottom to be more accurate.

But then we are still left with the question of what the "Temperature" and "Pressure" lines mean in relation to the labeled axes, and then we *still* have no clues as to what the horizontal axis should be labeled.

 

[JFS321]

Thanks for taking a look. I literally couldn't sleep last night wondering about this ridiculous graph!

 

[berkeman]

Thanks for taking a look. I literally couldn't sleep last night wondering about this ridiculous graph!

Is there a place where you can report suspected errors in the Practice Test problems?

 

[JFS321]

I don't know -- this free practice test has been widely circulated for some time. What really ticks me off is the fact that we give this kind of crap to the kids. My school is very low performing -- average science ACT score of 15. Imagine what the students do when I tell them that this graph is simply incorrect...suddenly any gains they may have had in the confidence of science is gone! Granted, some of that is just teenagers being ridiculous...but it becomes an issue when the students begin believing half of what they see on the ACT is made-up garbage...

 

[anorlunda]

I sympathize. If you ever do discover what they were trying to show, please post it here.

By the way, you should explain to the students that test designers are almost certainly not scientists (for example in meteorology). Also, the gold standard by which science should be judged is the peer reviewed paper. In theory, stupid errors are filtered out before those papers are published.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm a bit embarrassed that I cannot make sense of this graph.

No need to be embarrassed; it is nonsense, as it stands. I couldn't be bothered to read the other questions on the paper but are they just as poorly presented and vague?