in/on the test

[masterding]

Quote from VOA:
Staying in school really can make you smarter. A new study by researchers in Norway have found that students who remain in school longer than other students the same age have higher IQ scores.
In the mid-1950s, the Norwegian government began requiring students to attend school until they were 16 years old, rather than allowing them to drop out at 14.
Communities had until 1972 to phase in the compulsory education reform, which meant that, for nearly 20 years, youngsters in some municipalities went to school for seven years and others attended classes for at least nine years.
That gave Taryn Ann Galloway a unique opportunity to see what impact the extra two years of education had on the intellectual development of students.
...

The average IQ score on the intelligence test is 100, with most of the population falling somewhere between 85 and 115 on the scale.
...
For years, there's been vigorous debate among psychologists about whether a person's intelligence is the result of "smart" genes or a nurturing environment in infancy. Galloway's results seem to support the nurturing side of the nature versus nurture argument.
She suggests getting two extra years of academic practice during the middle teenage years may also help boost IQ scores.
"I think it's because you do learn general thinking skills at school and you are able to practice them, and you have lots of opportunity to practice them. So this is a two year extension of compulsory schooling for two years, so they were able to simply improve their skills."
My questions:
1.We don't need to put "at" before "the same age"?
2.Which one is correct,on the test or in the test?
3.I' don't understand this sentence.
4.Does this setnence sound redundant ?
Thanks,

 

[emsr2d2]

Quote from VOA:

Staying in school really can make you smarter. A new study by researchers in Norway have found that students who remain in school longer than other students the same age have higher IQ scores.

In the mid-1950s, the Norwegian government began requiring students to attend school until they were 16 years old, rather than allowing them to drop out at 14.
Communities had until 1972 to phase in the compulsory education reform, which meant that, for nearly 20 years, youngsters in some municipalities went to school for seven years and others attended classes for at least nine years.
That gave Taryn Ann Galloway a unique opportunity to see what impact the extra two years of education had on the intellectual development of students.
...

The average IQ score on the intelligence test is 100, with most of the population falling somewhere between 85 and 115 on the scale.
...
For years, there's been vigorous debate among psychologists about whether a person's intelligence is the result of "smart" genes or a nurturing environment in infancy. Galloway's results seem to support the nurturing side of the nature versus nurture argument.
She suggests getting two extra years of academic practice during the middle teenage years may also help boost IQ scores.
"I think it's because you do learn general thinking skills at school and you are able to practice them, and you have lots of opportunity to practice them. So this is a two year extension of compulsory schooling for two years, so they were able to simply improve their skills."

My questions:

1. [STRIKE]We don't[/STRIKE] Don't we need to put "at" before "the same age"?
No, we don't. It's a shortened form of "other students who are [of] the same age".

2. Which one is correct, "on the test" or "in the test"?
They're both possible.

3.I don't understand this sentence.
There is an ongoing argument about whether people turn into the adults they do based on a natural tendency (nature), or because of how they are brought up (nurtured). This is the "nature versus nurture argument". The writer is saying that the evidence from the school experiment supports the "nurture" side of this argument.

4.Does this [STRIKE]setnence[/STRIKE] sentence sound redundant?
Certainly some of it does. It repeats the phrase "two year(s)".

Thanks.

See above.

 

[masterding]

1.So if any preposition is needed, "of" will be more appropriate than "at"?
2.What's the difference between" in the test" and " on the test'? In the context of the quotes,which one should we choose?
Thanks.

 

[sumon.]

So this is a two year extension of compulsory schooling for two years, so they were able to simply improve their skills."

4.Does this setnence sentence sound redundant?
Certainly some of it does. It repeats the phrase "two year(s)".

Science it sounds like slightly redundant, is it a mistake or redundant but natural ?

 

[emsr2d2]

1.So if any preposition is needed, "of" will be more appropriate than "at"?
Yes.

2.What's the difference between" in the test" and " on the test'? In the context of the quotes,which one should we choose?
As I said, either is possible.
I have heard and used "How did you do on your exams?", "How did you do in your test?" etc etc. I see no particular benefit of using one over the other in your quotes.

Thanks.

See above.

 

[masterding]

So this is a two year extension of compulsory schooling for two years, so they were able to simply improve their skills."


Science it sounds like slightly redundant, is it a mistake or redundant but natural ?

In my opinion ,it 's redundant but not natural, but it may not be a mistake. even it was a mistake ,it would be understandable. people make mistakes every now and then ,when they speak, that happens in all languages.
As teacher Barb_D said, quote:
"Let's not forget that when people speak, they usually are not speaking prepared words. When you speak, you change the course of what you're about to say, or repeat parts of what you alread have said, or in other ways produce ungrammatical phrasing that you would not produce if you had time to write it out ahead of time. "