I eliminated (E) because based on the stimulus, it doesn’t state that any antibiotic was actually used on bacteria X. It could just be assuming “no single antibiotic now on the market is powerful enough”. E) makes the jump to say they have been used and bacteria as become resistant to some without a clear claim in the stimulus
Is anybody else getting these questions right without mapping out the conditional logic? I worry that this might hurt me in the future, but it is quicker for me to read through the answer choices and pick the right answer without thinking about sufficient/necessary conditions.
I got this wrong for both actual and BR :( I really do suck at MSS. I looked at the question the third time and it clicked. I used rule and exception and solved it in under 40 secs.
Domain: Bacterial Species
Rule: Antibiotic -> Greater resistance
Exception: Eliminated.
X is not eliminated so exception does not apply. So, the rule applies. Therefore,
Antibiotic(x)
------------------
Greater resistance(x)
If anyone is struggling with logic for this question, I hope this explanation helps.
Edit: this comment was written before watching the video lmao
For E, what about the fact that the passage doesn't explicitly specify that an antibiotic is or has been used against X? I was thinking E was wrong because the passage doesn't specify that antibiotics were ever used on X before
So Im trying to get quicker at realizing what the conditions are, but ultimately I am finding the answer much quicker with a process of elimination, still taking at least a minute, minute 20, but that is helping for some of these MBT and MSS questions.
My issue is not reading closely enough even though I'm taking my time. I completely skipped over B and what it said for some reason and thought it said something different, I feel dumb lol.
As justification for why answer choice E is wrong, would it be incorrect to say that the passage does not support/only weakly supports that there have even been antibiotics used on species X
Thought E was wrong because it says 'to at least some.' if the resistance development is inevitable, then it would have to say 'to all' used against it.
I keep getting frustrated because I get the question wrong on my first try, then I get it right in the blind review. It's good that I am getting them right, I guess it is just a matter of having my blind review thinking while under time pressure. I guess my main problem is, when should I start worrying about time pressure? Is now (2 months in) too early?
Did anyone else eliminate E because of the different "degrees of certainty" in the stimulus vs the answer choice? The stimulus clearly states that NO antibiotic that has been tested against bacteria X has been able to eliminate it and the rule in stimulus states that bacterias develop resistance to ANY antibiotic used against it (unless they are able to eliminate it completely). To me that sounds much stronger than saying that X is more resistant to "at least some" antibiotics that have been used against it - in my opinion that implies that maybe X became resistant to only some of the antibiotics that did not eliminate it, which goes against the rule
As someone with a bio degree, I always make so many assumptions with these science questions because in my head I'm like "well yeah this is obviously true", I'm creating my own biases based on learned information.
I have to remember to be very objective in reading questions.
I don't understand why B is so obviously correct. Aren't we making an assumption by choosing B that they didn't use a combination of antibiotics? All the stimulus says is that any SINGLE antibiotic (ON ITS OWN) isn't powerful enough to eliminate the bacteria.
B says, "If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years." But shouldn't it have said, "If any antibiotic now on the market is used ALONE against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years?"
If two are used together to successfully eliminate the bacteria, wouldn't the exception still technically be applied? This alternative was even hinted at in the stimulus by including the word "single." That word wasn't necessary and really made me feel like they were introducing a trap.
I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.
I feel kind of silly not just recognizing this as a "rule/exception to the rule" conditional type argument, but I did get the right answer and then in the blind review used lawgic to check the validity.
Using the indicator word "unless" to negate the sufficient, I got "if an antibiotic doesn't eliminate the species, the species becomes more resistant within a few years"
/eliminate → resistance
and with its contrapositive (just for funsies):
/resistance → eliminate
Then using the indicator word "no" in the second sentence, I got "if an antibiotic is currently on the market, it cannot eliminate species X"
current → /eliminate
contrapositive:
eliminate → current
Now if we connect some of these, we get:
current → /eliminate → resistance
Which is exactly what B says (current → resistance).
I feel like I'm not consciously doing this whole thing when I'm under the time constraint, so I'm not sure if I'm just lucking out or if I just know deep down in my heart of hearts what to do lol
Does anyone else get the question correct and then the explanation confuses them? Like, I can read the question and identify the conditional logic and so forth but when watching the video it confuses me because my processing isn’t the same. Idk, just putting it out there lol.
I chose A. Yeah, I know that I feel dumb, but I chose A based on the last sentence lmao. I see why B is correct and I chose B in the blind review, but damn. I don't know if I misread or what. I see why A is wrong and why B is right, but why in the hell could I not notice that when doing the question under time constraints?
3
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
79 comments
i fell for e ;-;
I eliminated (E) because based on the stimulus, it doesn’t state that any antibiotic was actually used on bacteria X. It could just be assuming “no single antibiotic now on the market is powerful enough”. E) makes the jump to say they have been used and bacteria as become resistant to some without a clear claim in the stimulus
Is anybody else getting these questions right without mapping out the conditional logic? I worry that this might hurt me in the future, but it is quicker for me to read through the answer choices and pick the right answer without thinking about sufficient/necessary conditions.
I got this wrong for both actual and BR :( I really do suck at MSS. I looked at the question the third time and it clicked. I used rule and exception and solved it in under 40 secs.
Domain: Bacterial Species
Rule: Antibiotic -> Greater resistance
Exception: Eliminated.
X is not eliminated so exception does not apply. So, the rule applies. Therefore,
Antibiotic(x)
------------------
Greater resistance(x)
If anyone is struggling with logic for this question, I hope this explanation helps.
Edit: this comment was written before watching the video lmao
I got the right answer, however I was way over the target time of 1 minute. Specifically, it took me 7 minutes to get this right.
At this point in the course, how concerned should I be that it took me this long to get the answer?
For E, what about the fact that the passage doesn't explicitly specify that an antibiotic is or has been used against X? I was thinking E was wrong because the passage doesn't specify that antibiotics were ever used on X before
So Im trying to get quicker at realizing what the conditions are, but ultimately I am finding the answer much quicker with a process of elimination, still taking at least a minute, minute 20, but that is helping for some of these MBT and MSS questions.
My issue is not reading closely enough even though I'm taking my time. I completely skipped over B and what it said for some reason and thought it said something different, I feel dumb lol.
As justification for why answer choice E is wrong, would it be incorrect to say that the passage does not support/only weakly supports that there have even been antibiotics used on species X
I used conditional logic group 3 with the unless and treated the conditional as single concept.
Bacteria Develop Resistance (BDR)
Antibiotic completly eliminated the species (ACE)
using the uncless group 3 I picked one and negated it and made it sufficient
/BDR--> AEC
take the contrastive
/AEC--> BDR
for X /AEC
-------
X(BDR)
for X species of bacteria, it will develop antibiotic resistance. t
then I went hunting and (B) was by the closest.
I got the right answer but I'm worried I just landed there accidentally. can someone check mu logic?
I think E is better unsupported by the fact that it is never stipulated that any antibiotics have been used on bacteria X at all.
Who else had to make a side note NOT to confuse MSS and MBT due to MBT's phrasing of its question stem?
I mean, the two types of LR question types are not far off from each other, it is still important to be able to distinguish the two from. each other.
Thought E was wrong because it says 'to at least some.' if the resistance development is inevitable, then it would have to say 'to all' used against it.
I keep getting frustrated because I get the question wrong on my first try, then I get it right in the blind review. It's good that I am getting them right, I guess it is just a matter of having my blind review thinking while under time pressure. I guess my main problem is, when should I start worrying about time pressure? Is now (2 months in) too early?
Fell for D :((( rookie mistake
Did anyone else eliminate E because of the different "degrees of certainty" in the stimulus vs the answer choice? The stimulus clearly states that NO antibiotic that has been tested against bacteria X has been able to eliminate it and the rule in stimulus states that bacterias develop resistance to ANY antibiotic used against it (unless they are able to eliminate it completely). To me that sounds much stronger than saying that X is more resistant to "at least some" antibiotics that have been used against it - in my opinion that implies that maybe X became resistant to only some of the antibiotics that did not eliminate it, which goes against the rule
As someone with a bio degree, I always make so many assumptions with these science questions because in my head I'm like "well yeah this is obviously true", I'm creating my own biases based on learned information.
I have to remember to be very objective in reading questions.
I don't understand why B is so obviously correct. Aren't we making an assumption by choosing B that they didn't use a combination of antibiotics? All the stimulus says is that any SINGLE antibiotic (ON ITS OWN) isn't powerful enough to eliminate the bacteria.
B says, "If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years." But shouldn't it have said, "If any antibiotic now on the market is used ALONE against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years?"
If two are used together to successfully eliminate the bacteria, wouldn't the exception still technically be applied? This alternative was even hinted at in the stimulus by including the word "single." That word wasn't necessary and really made me feel like they were introducing a trap.
I am so proud of myself... I always had a hard time diagraming unless statements, but for me the rule/exception framework always worked out so well for me to understand. I used it in this case and immediately inferred the restatement that was B.
Got it right, but I almost went for answer c.
Got it right. E was the only close alternative but it assumes quite a lot that we do not know.
I feel kind of silly not just recognizing this as a "rule/exception to the rule" conditional type argument, but I did get the right answer and then in the blind review used lawgic to check the validity.
Using the indicator word "unless" to negate the sufficient, I got "if an antibiotic doesn't eliminate the species, the species becomes more resistant within a few years"
/eliminate → resistance
and with its contrapositive (just for funsies):
/resistance → eliminate
Then using the indicator word "no" in the second sentence, I got "if an antibiotic is currently on the market, it cannot eliminate species X"
current → /eliminate
contrapositive:
eliminate → current
Now if we connect some of these, we get:
current → /eliminate → resistance
Which is exactly what B says (current → resistance).
I feel like I'm not consciously doing this whole thing when I'm under the time constraint, so I'm not sure if I'm just lucking out or if I just know deep down in my heart of hearts what to do lol
Does anyone else get the question correct and then the explanation confuses them? Like, I can read the question and identify the conditional logic and so forth but when watching the video it confuses me because my processing isn’t the same. Idk, just putting it out there lol.
Another reason E is wrong: we have no idea if any antibiotics were even used against bacteria X anyway
Lord help me.
I chose A. Yeah, I know that I feel dumb, but I chose A based on the last sentence lmao. I see why B is correct and I chose B in the blind review, but damn. I don't know if I misread or what. I see why A is wrong and why B is right, but why in the hell could I not notice that when doing the question under time constraints?