A study question asking for a prediction tests whether you can apply findings to a changed condition. Start with the sentence leading into the blank, then name what the researchers compared and what they found. Ask which finding matters when the condition changes, and follow the cause and effect through the text. Predict no more than the findings support, keeping what researchers measured separate from what they concluded. Wrong choices often stretch a result beyond the conditions tested.
Hints
- Hint 1
Look at the finding about panelists' independent scores. Ask what their disagreement suggests about confidence.
- Hint 2
Read the sentence about pressure to justify every award, then link that pressure to the earlier finding about confidence. How would the link affect judgments as funding becomes scarcer?
Step-by-step
Connect confidence to funding pressure
Step 1Define what distance measures
The disciplinary-distance score measures how different the concepts and methods of the combined fields were. Distance describes the gap between fields, not the quality of the work. The phrase Park and Eze would therefore predict that asks us to use the findings to predict what happens at different funding rates.
- Step 2
Separate novelty from quality
What do the findings say about quality? More distant applications were rated more novel, but on panels with relatively high funding rates, distance wasn't linked to overall scores. Among funded applications, it wasn't tied to lower eventual citation impact either. These findings don't show that greater distance means worse work, so let's look at the panelists' confidence.
- Step 3
Explain why confidence matters more
Why might the judgment change when funding is scarce? Panelists' independent scores diverged more as distance increased, which prior research links to lower confidence in estimating quality. So greater distance comes with more uncertainty about quality, not evidence that quality is lower. Low funding rates add pressure to justify every award, pushing evaluators toward choices they can judge confidently. Less confident judgments become a bigger drawback when fewer applications can be funded.
- Step 4
Predict which applications gain
Which applications should gain from that pressure? Evaluators favor choices whose merits they can assess confidently, so applications joining nearby fields should gain a growing score advantage as funding rates decline. The option favoring applications joining nearby disciplines makes that prediction about scores without claiming that the research itself is better. Choice B.