He explained this as the experiment rule but this is simply a hypothesis. The way to strengthen it is if we remove the causal factor and the event doesnt happen. (remove heavy metals… that means that they dont have resistance to anything). This is what B does. Its not about the experiment but more about how we weaken and strengthen the hypothesis and its simply by doing the three causal rules. B says that if we remove heavy metals… bacteria is not resistant to anything. Meaning that if we have heavy metals, the bacteria does have resistance which strengthens the hypothesis/conclusion. a causes b. if A is gone and b doesnt happen that means a causes b.
i keep choosing the opposite answer (i.e., answer that weakens the hypothesis in a strengthen question; answer that strengthens the hypothesis in a weaken question). what is wrong with me
I picked B at first and then changed my answer to C because the stimulus didn't mentioned bacteria that is present in sewage that is free of heavy metals. I originally thought that we had to make comparisons to things that are mentioned in the stimulus.
it's so frustrating choosing the wrong answer bc when i review it and read the explanations, i go "ohhhh" and realize the question wasn't so hard at all
Could I have translated "are generally resistant to neither HM Poisoning nor antibiotics" in Answer Choice B as " aren't generally resistant to HM Poisoning and Antibiotics" since "neither... nor" means "not this and not that"? I think I eliminated Answer Choice B because I didn't click in this grammar and then moved on.
I am consistently getting these questions wrong (S and W both). Is it just me? I feel so dumb. I am watching the recorded videos on these topics to get a better idea to approach them but there is no improvement. This is so cruel.
See where I went wrong with B was in my head I thought of it as "If there is no heavy metal even present, how are we supposed to prove that the bacterias exposure to the HM promotes their resistance to antibiotics" when I should have looked at it as "No HM, no resistance" = if there is no heavy metal, then there can't be resistance which helps the argument
#feedback I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but right after I answer a drill and before blind review, I can tell if I got the question right even if the score is blurred out (eg. I can tell between 0% and 100%). Is there a way to fix this - I feel like I am blind reviewing with bias, especially when I know I got the question right.
Hi! I'm wondering if anyone understands how to identify this question as an experiment? What makes this question different from the other "Strengthening" questions we did earlier before introducing ideal experiments? I'm confused on how I would identify it
Seems like there's two tactics for these types of strengthening questions: either rule out an alternative hypothesis or think of the ideal experiment and critique or try to recreate it. Keep getting confused on when to use which though. Anyone have any tips?
Have not gotten 1 question right since starting this module lol. This is so discouraging. I just don't get the logic behind the choices here. None of them seem to make sense for what the question stem is asking.
I think where I went wrong with A was that I misunderstood what A was saying; it is not saying that the less antibiotic resistance you have, the lower the metal concentration. A few problems I have found with it:
- mentions lower heavy metal resistance, not metal concentration (lower metal resistance doesn't have to imply lower metal concentration where the bacteria are)
- mentions bacteria in general, not bacteria in sewage (so not very analogous)
Aside from those flaws with this answer choice, would it have strengthened the argument if it was reworded to say, "Most bacteria that survive sewage waste and have weak antibiotic resistance came from sewage waste that does not contain high concentrations of heavy metals?"
In my mind, this answer choices would be doing something similar to B, which is affirming that the correlation between antibiotic resistance and heavy metal concentration is positive, such that lower levels of metals contribute to lower levels of antibiotic resistance. Although B of course is the better answer as it suggests a controlled experiment with metal concentration as a cause (and not just something correlated with antibiotic resistance).
Whenever the questions/answers are explained I understand it and I feel like I made a silly mistake. Regardless I keep getting these strengthening questions wrong. Honestly crashing out. Help.
I think I'm getting it now... This is my understanding but correct me if I'm wrong!
So for weaken questions - you take the phenomena and replace the conclusion with the facts of the phenomena? You are weakening the argument because you're saying - you got the right idea with the phenomena ... but you came to the wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion will be the answer choice that best connects all parts of the phenomenon.
For the strengthen questions - your goal is to actually find the weak points of the phenomenon and any gaps in the argument, find the areas that require assumption to connect the conclusion with the phenomena and look for that in the answer choices. Here if you find that weak point or gap and think of it as - you are filling in that gap so you can strengthen the argument and conclusion.
To me, A is trying to confuse contrapositive in causal logic being valid, not entirely irrelevant.
5
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.
141 comments
got it right!
He explained this as the experiment rule but this is simply a hypothesis. The way to strengthen it is if we remove the causal factor and the event doesnt happen. (remove heavy metals… that means that they dont have resistance to anything). This is what B does. Its not about the experiment but more about how we weaken and strengthen the hypothesis and its simply by doing the three causal rules. B says that if we remove heavy metals… bacteria is not resistant to anything. Meaning that if we have heavy metals, the bacteria does have resistance which strengthens the hypothesis/conclusion. a causes b. if A is gone and b doesnt happen that means a causes b.
4 minutes but i got it right lol
i keep choosing the opposite answer (i.e., answer that weakens the hypothesis in a strengthen question; answer that strengthens the hypothesis in a weaken question). what is wrong with me
I picked B at first and then changed my answer to C because the stimulus didn't mentioned bacteria that is present in sewage that is free of heavy metals. I originally thought that we had to make comparisons to things that are mentioned in the stimulus.
it's so frustrating choosing the wrong answer bc when i review it and read the explanations, i go "ohhhh" and realize the question wasn't so hard at all
Could I have translated "are generally resistant to neither HM Poisoning nor antibiotics" in Answer Choice B as " aren't generally resistant to HM Poisoning and Antibiotics" since "neither... nor" means "not this and not that"? I think I eliminated Answer Choice B because I didn't click in this grammar and then moved on.
I definitely picked D
Conclusion:
^exposure to heavy metal = resistance to antibiotics
Anticipation to strengthen argument (conclusion):
^no exposure to heavy metal = no resistance to antibiotics
This is so confusing!
I am consistently getting these questions wrong (S and W both). Is it just me? I feel so dumb. I am watching the recorded videos on these topics to get a better idea to approach them but there is no improvement. This is so cruel.
sobbing in the library rn wbu
See where I went wrong with B was in my head I thought of it as "If there is no heavy metal even present, how are we supposed to prove that the bacterias exposure to the HM promotes their resistance to antibiotics" when I should have looked at it as "No HM, no resistance" = if there is no heavy metal, then there can't be resistance which helps the argument
hate when he starts the video with "hopefully you got it right" because i indeed, did not get it right
#feedback I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but right after I answer a drill and before blind review, I can tell if I got the question right even if the score is blurred out (eg. I can tell between 0% and 100%). Is there a way to fix this - I feel like I am blind reviewing with bias, especially when I know I got the question right.
i got this right super quickly and then started over thinking to the point where i gaslit myself into the wrong answer lol
Hi! I'm wondering if anyone understands how to identify this question as an experiment? What makes this question different from the other "Strengthening" questions we did earlier before introducing ideal experiments? I'm confused on how I would identify it
Seems like there's two tactics for these types of strengthening questions: either rule out an alternative hypothesis or think of the ideal experiment and critique or try to recreate it. Keep getting confused on when to use which though. Anyone have any tips?
Have not gotten 1 question right since starting this module lol. This is so discouraging. I just don't get the logic behind the choices here. None of them seem to make sense for what the question stem is asking.
I think where I went wrong with A was that I misunderstood what A was saying; it is not saying that the less antibiotic resistance you have, the lower the metal concentration. A few problems I have found with it:
- mentions lower heavy metal resistance, not metal concentration (lower metal resistance doesn't have to imply lower metal concentration where the bacteria are)
- mentions bacteria in general, not bacteria in sewage (so not very analogous)
Aside from those flaws with this answer choice, would it have strengthened the argument if it was reworded to say, "Most bacteria that survive sewage waste and have weak antibiotic resistance came from sewage waste that does not contain high concentrations of heavy metals?"
In my mind, this answer choices would be doing something similar to B, which is affirming that the correlation between antibiotic resistance and heavy metal concentration is positive, such that lower levels of metals contribute to lower levels of antibiotic resistance. Although B of course is the better answer as it suggests a controlled experiment with metal concentration as a cause (and not just something correlated with antibiotic resistance).
i would have thought D and E would weaken the argument. do they?
Whenever the questions/answers are explained I understand it and I feel like I made a silly mistake. Regardless I keep getting these strengthening questions wrong. Honestly crashing out. Help.
I think I'm getting it now... This is my understanding but correct me if I'm wrong!
So for weaken questions - you take the phenomena and replace the conclusion with the facts of the phenomena? You are weakening the argument because you're saying - you got the right idea with the phenomena ... but you came to the wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion will be the answer choice that best connects all parts of the phenomenon.
For the strengthen questions - your goal is to actually find the weak points of the phenomenon and any gaps in the argument, find the areas that require assumption to connect the conclusion with the phenomena and look for that in the answer choices. Here if you find that weak point or gap and think of it as - you are filling in that gap so you can strengthen the argument and conclusion.
Hey there are good bacteria too :)
To me, A is trying to confuse contrapositive in causal logic being valid, not entirely irrelevant.