Conflicting Viewpoints on ACT Science: a complete guide to reading the arguments, tracking claims, agreement and disagreement, evaluating evidence, and pacing

Why Conflicting Viewpoints needs its own playbook

Conflicting Viewpoints is the most reading-heavy ACT Science format, so it rewards a reading and pacing playbook the figure passages do not need. This guide ties together the matching dot-point pages, each with its own practice: anatomy of a Conflicting Viewpoints passage, tracking each viewpoint's claims, points of agreement and disagreement, using evidence to support or weaken a view, and the reading-heavy passage strategy.

The anatomy: rival explanations of one phenomenon

A Conflicting Viewpoints passage opens with a shared phenomenon, then presents two or more written explanations (Scientist 1 and Scientist 2, or Hypothesis A and B). The views agree on what is being explained and disagree on the cause or mechanism, because they rest on different premises or read incomplete data differently. It is the most text-heavy format, so read it as arguments, not data.

Tracking each view's claim

Read actively and capture, for each view:

• The central claim in one short phrase (the cause or mechanism it proposes).
• The one or two main reasons it offers.

Keep the views distinct, and separate a view's claim from the evidence it cites. For detail questions, return to the named view's text.

Agreement and disagreement

The views usually agree on the phenomenon and disagree on the mechanism. Use the accept-or-reject test: run a statement past each view.

• Both accept it: agreement.
• One accepts, one rejects it: the disagreement.
• Neither holds it: not in the passage (wrong answer).

Name the specific claim in dispute, not a vague topic.

Evaluating new evidence

Anchor on the view's specific claim, then judge a new finding:

• Support: it matches what the claim predicts (a comet impact predicts a crater).
• Weaken: it contradicts the claim or removes a mechanism the claim needs (no volcanism undercuts a volcanic-cause claim).
• Neutral: it touches neither claim.

Supporting one view does not automatically prove the other wrong.

Pacing the slowest passage

Because it reads slowly, plan its slot: do it first while fresh, or save it for a deliberate block after banking the quick figure passages, but never rush it mid-section. Read once, actively, then answer the quick claim-detail questions first and the slower evaluation questions second.

How this format is examined

• Detail: state what a specific view claims or cites.
• Agreement and disagreement: find shared ground and the exact point of divergence.
• Evaluation: judge whether a new finding supports, weakens, or is neutral to a view.
• Pacing: read once, bank detail questions, then reason through evaluation questions.

Check your knowledge

A quick check on the Conflicting Viewpoints skills. Answer them, then read the solutions.

1. Why do the viewpoints in this format conflict, and what do they usually agree on? (2 points)
2. What two things should you capture for each view as you read? (2 points)
3. Describe the accept-or-reject test for agreement and disagreement questions. (2 points)
4. A view claims a disease spreads by mosquitoes. A study finds the disease appears only where those mosquitoes live. Support or weaken, and why? (2 points)
5. Give one reason to do Conflicting Viewpoints first and one reason to save it for last. (2 points)