I got it right, but... eradicated?? If it came back, then it wasn't eradicated I feel. Like that contradicts their theory, no? If I said aliens came down and eradicated humanity, and then they flew away, and the next day humans came back, that would be strange, no? I guess you would assume this means humans weren't completely eradicated. And because the answer choices are presumed true, but the stimulus isn't given that privilege, it makes me doubt the validity of their argument.
dictionary definition: "destroy completely; put an end to." hmmmm im annoyed with their phrasing!!
@Njbrunette I read that it Disappeared, rather than was fully eradicated. Just because you leave the room because it's stinky doesn't mean you fell off the face of the earth leaving the room. The disease could have thrived in other places with little to no polution
I though D was wrong because the diseases were eradicated. I took that as they were permanently gone, so how would they return. Got it right on BR though.
Does anyone have any tips on how to get better at these types of questions? I still struggle on the 1 star weaken and strengthen questions really badly. I just have a hard time seeing the bridge to the correct answer choice.
@OwenTrela I totally understand where you're at. My primary goal after reading a strengthening stem is to ask: how can I find an answer choice that helps make the conclusion of the author more true? If any AC makes the conclusion or explanation of the author less true or doesn't remotely help it, I do not pick it and move on to the next. So in practice, here I looked at answer choice A: Some plants can develop resistance to air pollution, well thats not good for trying to prove that air pollution eradicates plant diseases. B) Talking about infection by the disease, but I am concerned with air pollution eradicating said diseases, so no. C) Weakning the argument by saying scientists actually dont know what effects air polution has on some plant species. D) This one is saying the two diseases came back after the city became less polluted, and that grants support to the explanation that air pollution is what caused both diseases to be eradicted thats my winner. E) Neither helps nor weakens my argument, it is just saying the two diseases were the only ones that dissapeard doesnt say how. That was the way i thought through the answer choices and ive always kept the conclusion/explanation of the author in the back of my mind while actively combing through the answer choices looking for one to make said conclusion more likely/true.
I think I am very good at strengthening questions, but for some reason the Weakening set of questions are the ones who I just don't know how to resolve., I wonder if I should eliminate those answers that have nothing to do with the argument itself! ughhhh we'll figure it out
@LauraBolivar Gotta start somewhere! At the very least, you are getting strengthening questions right, which is good. When you do drills, you should do more of the weakening questions to help beef up your accuracy.
@OmarAbuaita Definetly working on weaking arguments lol no other option seems like I really really really really need to pass this exam with a high note but we'll see
How can it be D when the word eradicated is used. If the air pollution eradicated the diseases, or destroyed them completely, then D does not make sense
@nmd19 It is D because if air pollution was the cause for the removal of the plant diseases, then when air pollution decreases, the plant diseases should return. This strengthens the hypothesis posed.
Said another way:
If the plant diseases did return upon air pollution decreasing, the argument is strengthened.
@nmd19 You cannot assume "it is likely that air pollution eradicated these diseases" to be the same as "air pollution eradicated these diseases." This is not what the argument says. The argument presents a hypothesis. We are strengthening the likeliness that this hypothesis could be right. How would you strengthen the hypothesis that air pollution "eradicates" plant diseases? The diseases return when air pollution subsides.
@nmd19 okay. But the stim does not say that it was. It is hypothesizing that it could. I would suggest meeting with a tutor, because it seems the semantics of this test are a pain point (which they are for everyone). best of luck.
@nmd19 Eradicated diseases can in fact return. The stimulus states that the disease was likely eradicated by air pollution. The answer that strengthens the argument is D.
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.
92 comments
I got it right, but... eradicated?? If it came back, then it wasn't eradicated I feel. Like that contradicts their theory, no? If I said aliens came down and eradicated humanity, and then they flew away, and the next day humans came back, that would be strange, no? I guess you would assume this means humans weren't completely eradicated. And because the answer choices are presumed true, but the stimulus isn't given that privilege, it makes me doubt the validity of their argument.
dictionary definition: "destroy completely; put an end to." hmmmm im annoyed with their phrasing!!
Even with the Flu kicking my ass I got it right sigh. HOPE EXIST
I got it correct but am i the only one that gets really anxious before submitting and when I get it right i’m like “Thank God”
#sotraumatized
How does something come back if it’s eradicated?
@Njbrunette I read that it Disappeared, rather than was fully eradicated. Just because you leave the room because it's stinky doesn't mean you fell off the face of the earth leaving the room. The disease could have thrived in other places with little to no polution
I though D was wrong because the diseases were eradicated. I took that as they were permanently gone, so how would they return. Got it right on BR though.
Does anyone have any tips on how to get better at these types of questions? I still struggle on the 1 star weaken and strengthen questions really badly. I just have a hard time seeing the bridge to the correct answer choice.
@OwenTrela I totally understand where you're at. My primary goal after reading a strengthening stem is to ask: how can I find an answer choice that helps make the conclusion of the author more true? If any AC makes the conclusion or explanation of the author less true or doesn't remotely help it, I do not pick it and move on to the next. So in practice, here I looked at answer choice A: Some plants can develop resistance to air pollution, well thats not good for trying to prove that air pollution eradicates plant diseases. B) Talking about infection by the disease, but I am concerned with air pollution eradicating said diseases, so no. C) Weakning the argument by saying scientists actually dont know what effects air polution has on some plant species. D) This one is saying the two diseases came back after the city became less polluted, and that grants support to the explanation that air pollution is what caused both diseases to be eradicted thats my winner. E) Neither helps nor weakens my argument, it is just saying the two diseases were the only ones that dissapeard doesnt say how. That was the way i thought through the answer choices and ive always kept the conclusion/explanation of the author in the back of my mind while actively combing through the answer choices looking for one to make said conclusion more likely/true.
got it wrong and picked e but then got it right during BR 😭
Got it right, but still over the time limit.
yayaya got it right :)
Got it right. 11 seconds over.
i got it wrong at first and right in the BR. I dont know why but at first i eliminated D and then in BR i was like ohh..that makes sense..
I think I am very good at strengthening questions, but for some reason the Weakening set of questions are the ones who I just don't know how to resolve., I wonder if I should eliminate those answers that have nothing to do with the argument itself! ughhhh we'll figure it out
@LauraBolivar Gotta start somewhere! At the very least, you are getting strengthening questions right, which is good. When you do drills, you should do more of the weakening questions to help beef up your accuracy.
@OmarAbuaita Definetly working on weaking arguments lol no other option seems like I really really really really need to pass this exam with a high note but we'll see
I got it right but this took me way too long lmao
got it correct!
I thought of the contrapositive of the cause (Ik that is for conditions) and when I saw the answer choice, I jumped to conclusions
yippee got it right even though it was a level one question!! 😍
@ggasca21 FR I've been struggling hardcore in this section I'll take any win I can get lol!
yassss (1 star)
How can it be D when the word eradicated is used. If the air pollution eradicated the diseases, or destroyed them completely, then D does not make sense
@nmd19 It is D because if air pollution was the cause for the removal of the plant diseases, then when air pollution decreases, the plant diseases should return. This strengthens the hypothesis posed.
Said another way:
If the plant diseases did return upon air pollution decreasing, the argument is strengthened.
@Gregmjr They cant return because they have been eradicated. Eradicate means the permanent reduction to zero.
@nmd19 You cannot assume "it is likely that air pollution eradicated these diseases" to be the same as "air pollution eradicated these diseases." This is not what the argument says. The argument presents a hypothesis. We are strengthening the likeliness that this hypothesis could be right. How would you strengthen the hypothesis that air pollution "eradicates" plant diseases? The diseases return when air pollution subsides.
@Gregmjr It is impossible for something that is eradicated to return.
@nmd19 okay. But the stim does not say that it was. It is hypothesizing that it could. I would suggest meeting with a tutor, because it seems the semantics of this test are a pain point (which they are for everyone). best of luck.
@nmd19 Eradicated diseases can in fact return. The stimulus states that the disease was likely eradicated by air pollution. The answer that strengthens the argument is D.
How can i increase my speed in these questions. I get the answers right but exceed the time
JY blessed us with a break by throwing a 1-star question at us
remember: a level one question is worth as many points as a level five question. every correct answer is a win 🥶
Let's go guys, we all feasting on this question!!
gets it right - then looks at analytics tab Ah shit.
living for the getting it on the one level difficulty
Got excited again. One star. Guys. I gotta stop getting excited.
A win is a win