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?
@faithliberatore951 I will say the more I try to think about these types of things, the more it trips me up. May just be me, but I enjoy learning and seeing the different techniques. Then when I get to the questions, I don't try to identify the exact tactic, but more so let my intuition guide me, then think how would the tutors respond to this and try to think like them... I know that seems very abstract, but sometimes stressing too much about specific techniques can get in the way of our logic as humans. You've got this!!
@KMK Totally second this! At the end of the day, the 7sage techniques are just one way of approaching the questions and you can use them to support, rather than replace your own intuitive thinking strategies.
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.
Hi! I am sorry to hear that. My brain oddly had a challenging time with MC questions so I feel you....
For this question, the goal is to find a piece of support that, within the case of bacteria in sewage sludge, heavy metal → resistance to antibiotics (the actual statement is not must be true/valid, but this is how my brain thinks about it).
B is correct because in this scenario, the bacteria that live in sewage sludge /heavy metal and /resistance to antibiotics. This supports the argument because in the absence of heavy metal, given the conditions were generally consistent, there was no developed resistance to antibiotics, which leads me to think that heavy metal may contribute to the resistance to antibiotics.
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).
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.
148 comments
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
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.
#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.
@littlehoot I thought I was the only one, I def agree
@littlehoot if you've found out a way to avoid this please let me know i have the same problem.
@LowOriginalConnection I think they fixed it for me? Now, I can't see the number anymore. Hopefully, it becomes a site-wide update!
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?
@faithliberatore951 I will say the more I try to think about these types of things, the more it trips me up. May just be me, but I enjoy learning and seeing the different techniques. Then when I get to the questions, I don't try to identify the exact tactic, but more so let my intuition guide me, then think how would the tutors respond to this and try to think like them... I know that seems very abstract, but sometimes stressing too much about specific techniques can get in the way of our logic as humans. You've got this!!
@KMK Totally second this! At the end of the day, the 7sage techniques are just one way of approaching the questions and you can use them to support, rather than replace your own intuitive thinking strategies.
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.
Hi! I am sorry to hear that. My brain oddly had a challenging time with MC questions so I feel you....
For this question, the goal is to find a piece of support that, within the case of bacteria in sewage sludge, heavy metal → resistance to antibiotics (the actual statement is not must be true/valid, but this is how my brain thinks about it).
B is correct because in this scenario, the bacteria that live in sewage sludge /heavy metal and /resistance to antibiotics. This supports the argument because in the absence of heavy metal, given the conditions were generally consistent, there was no developed resistance to antibiotics, which leads me to think that heavy metal may contribute to the resistance to antibiotics.
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?