Hello Moiz,

Q10. The graphs are showing which types of names are being identified as celebrity names, so nothing is being attributed as fictitious, anything identified by a participant as fictitious is simply omitted from their responses. So graph B is suggesting that participants recognized very few celebrity names as being famous, but reported many of the fictitious names (both old and new) as famous. What we would expect to see is a graph like A, where many of the celebrity names are correctly recognized as famous, but several of the old fictitious names are identified as well, because they are familiar and incorrectly attributed as famous for that reason.

Q14. All we can say with certainty is that the passage is referencing relative poverty, precisely because it doesn't mention distinctions or specific values/incomes. It's true, the lower-incomes may be representative of absolute poverty, but because those low incomes are never quantified or described as absolute poverty we cannot say that is the case. The passage does specifically make comparisons however, saying that these incomes are low relative to the median income of the United States. This means that we are able to identify the low incomes as relative poverty based on the information given.

Q49. Shaping and acquisition are not exactly the same thing, but they are similar in a sense. Acquisition is a term used for classical conditioning, and it is when the association between neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus result in the neutral stimulus becoming a conditioned stimulus that successfully elicits a conditioned response. Shaping is a form of operant conditioning, and it is a process where rewards/punishments are given with successive approximations. So each time the response gets closer to the desired response the individual is rewarded, and through this process you shape behaviours to continually get closer to the desired response.

Nicole