I tend to subconsciously skip over longer or more grammar heavy answers in fear of time. Definitely need start analyzing the grammar in even the obviously wrong answer choices so I can do it faster during the real thing and not miss these questions!
I almost answered D but I felt like I was being tricked so I re-read everything and ultimately chose B! Below is my explanation:
The discrepancy between the stimulus' support and conclusion is the lack of comparison to another kind of sewage sludge, which an ideal of would cancel out the main characteristic of the subject. In this case, that characteristic should be the sewage sludge's concentration of heavy metals. The next thing to make sure is that this second version of the subject has, as much as possible, similar all other characteristics of the first/main version. Now, this alternative version must show the complete opposite of our main version's test result.
B meets these two criteria. uses a group that is free of heavy metals, but also has similar all other characteristics, making it the best version to compare our main version to. The test result was a complete opposite of the result from our main version: that it is generally not resistant to heavy-metal poisoning or antibiotics.
How does this compare to D? D provides an alternative explanation to the cause of antibiotic resistance, by saying that a sewage sludge with high concentration of heavy metal (our subject's main characteristic), generally has significant concentration of antibiotics. That is: A significant concentration of antibiotics do create antibiotic resistance.
@TeklaCo B eliminates an alternative hypothesis. Namely that something besides heavy metals in the sewage promotes resistance to antibiotics. It strengthens the correlation between heavy metals and AB resistance.
You can spin this towards ideal experiment if you spin the whole thing to be treated as an experiment, but we weren't really presented with that were we. Just a single microbiologist's opinion on some phenomena.
@ogreen26 for me, I picked B because it eliminated an alternative hypothesis following the same formula as the stimulus: /heavy metals -> /resistant to heavy-metal poisoning -> /resistant to antibiotics. the stimulus was: heavy metals -> resistant to heavy-metal poisoning -> resistant to antibiotics.
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
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
158 comments
Correct but I was unsure of my answer the entire time
Somethings starting to click! I dont know what but it's clicking! XD
I tend to subconsciously skip over longer or more grammar heavy answers in fear of time. Definitely need start analyzing the grammar in even the obviously wrong answer choices so I can do it faster during the real thing and not miss these questions!
Don't be afraid to find the right answer and not even read the others. Makes it so much easier.
B eliminates an alternative hypothesis. Its the answer. Done. Next
These strengthening/weakening questions have been very hard for me for some reason. Felt good to get this one.
I almost answered D but I felt like I was being tricked so I re-read everything and ultimately chose B! Below is my explanation:
The discrepancy between the stimulus' support and conclusion is the lack of comparison to another kind of sewage sludge, which an ideal of would cancel out the main characteristic of the subject. In this case, that characteristic should be the sewage sludge's concentration of heavy metals. The next thing to make sure is that this second version of the subject has, as much as possible, similar all other characteristics of the first/main version. Now, this alternative version must show the complete opposite of our main version's test result.
B meets these two criteria. uses a group that is free of heavy metals, but also has similar all other characteristics, making it the best version to compare our main version to. The test result was a complete opposite of the result from our main version: that it is generally not resistant to heavy-metal poisoning or antibiotics.
How does this compare to D? D provides an alternative explanation to the cause of antibiotic resistance, by saying that a sewage sludge with high concentration of heavy metal (our subject's main characteristic), generally has significant concentration of antibiotics. That is: A significant concentration of antibiotics do create antibiotic resistance.
it's so satisfying to finally catch sufficiency-necessity confusion
can someone explain this to me like im 5 LOL. i dont understand how this is B at all.
also any tips on strengthening questions would be appreicated!
@ogreen26 go back to foundations and read about ideal experiment. It will make much more sense
@TeklaCo I did this and it refreshed my memory on those important details in an ideal experiment.
@TeklaCo B eliminates an alternative hypothesis. Namely that something besides heavy metals in the sewage promotes resistance to antibiotics. It strengthens the correlation between heavy metals and AB resistance.
You can spin this towards ideal experiment if you spin the whole thing to be treated as an experiment, but we weren't really presented with that were we. Just a single microbiologist's opinion on some phenomena.
@ogreen26 for me, I picked B because it eliminated an alternative hypothesis following the same formula as the stimulus: /heavy metals -> /resistant to heavy-metal poisoning -> /resistant to antibiotics. the stimulus was: heavy metals -> resistant to heavy-metal poisoning -> resistant to antibiotics.
Talk about logical reasoning… It had to be use it to eliminate C.
knew it was B Neither threw me off
BR correct, I choose my second answer choice
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
@AliGoldberg same 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
@Premiseprincess same
@Premiseprincess Have these gotten any better for you? I'm still going thru the CC but this is taking me outttt
@Premiseprincess sameeeee
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
@iloveironman This is exactly how I thought! Which is why I didn't choose B. This is sooo frustrating and confusing.
hate when he starts the video with "hopefully you got it right" because i indeed, did not get it right
@jansenbienmbelarmino It's rather pointless for them to say that for sure, haha.