I was misled by the word 'eradicated'. My impression of this word is that it is gone (for good).
It would have made more sense if the hypothesis said 'It is likely that air pollution suppressed these diseases.", because it would imply that they could return should air pollution go away.
i got it right but debated it for this reason as well. but watching the video back im now thinking i shouldnt have tripped up on it since in these questions types as stated in the stem we need to take the answer choices as all being true. so in this case that word wouldnt have mattered since we can assume that this did happen. i always forget these answers choices are true lol. so much to remember
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.
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!!
@SusanLeifker I also got tripped up by this. In hindsight, you could argue it was only eradicated in the polluted industrial cities, but not elsewhere. Leaving a way for the diseases to come back I guess? That' the only way I can make sense of it.
You could eradicate hate in a community, but have hate return in a few years. Eradication precludes nothing from the future. It simply states that at the current moment it is at zero. Which is the same as something disappearing, it is gone, it is zero.
@yesterdayseeker punching the air in satisfaction when i saw 100 on my answer choice but then i thought to myself "watch it be a one star"......surprise surprise
@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
The conclusion from the stimulus is that the disease were "eradicated" by pollution. Doesn't the return of the diseases directly weaken the "eradication" section?
In context, the word "eradicate" doesn't mean "gone forever, never to reappear." For example, see this definition and the example usage "polio has been eradicated"
this was my thought at first, but then after comparing it to my second choice, I understood it was a possibility for something "eradicated" to come back.
Is there a list of vocabulary words we can study? This question almost tripped me up, because my prior knowledge of "eradicate" meant "rid of it, destroy it forever."
There is no context in which the word eradicate does not mean this. The meaning is unambiguous: "to get rid of or destroy something completely".
With respect to polio, there were 30 cases of wild poliovirus Type I in 2022 globally, 0 Type 2, and 0 Type 3. Claims of eradication of polio are applicable to the latter two cases, which the WHO confirmed in 2015 and 2020 respectively.
This is a bad question that has no didactic value and serves only to undermine praxis. You should strongly consider pulling it and substituting it with a question which doesn't require a student to completely toss both the common understanding as well as the dictionary definition of a word to divine what the LSAT authors wanted them to think.
I wish that you guys would create an lsat mini dictionary for commonly used words from the test so that we can better assess how each word is being applied in each question. Even though I got this question correct sometimes the wording is very tricky on certain answer choices on the LSAT.
Respectfully, this is not a great attitude to have towards the test because you can't argue why you think you're right on test day. A wrong answer is still a wrong answer. The core curriculum has established already in foundations that this test and its vocabulary is designed to trick you. It's not unreasonable to view the word "eradicate" in the context of the question, rather than in the context of the real world. I understand from your perspective why it's so frustrating because the precision of words is key in both the LSAT and legal world. However, it doesn't matter if you think it's a bad question; it's a question (on the easy end of the scale) that appeared on a real test. Questions like this will be on future practices and tests. For your benefit, it's not worth it to complain about why you think the question is poorly worded.
The glaring misapprehension that you're proceeding under here is that I am arguing or would argue with LSAC. I'm arguing with 7Sage, a service that I pay for, over the value of its instruction when instead of recognizing the defective nature of this answer choice, they choose to bend over backwards to gaslight their customers as to why the indicated answer choice is correct and their customers' reasonable expectation consistent with prior instruction to assume the plain meaning of a word is now wrong in this one particular instance.
For your benefit, I'm going to offer some advice based on 2 careers across 35 years: If you don't at least challenge clear error that puts you, your client, or your employer at a loss, then you'll spend a large part of your career relegated to a cubicle doing scut work. Agreeable people get steamrolled in competitive environments.
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.
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
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.
e·rad·i·cate = destroy completely; put an end to. If the word "mitigate" was used then I could understand answer choice D being correct. #7Sage Help Me Please
Look at the introductory phrase "In English Cities". We are only talking about the cities in England and not in the countryside or cities in other countries. A disease can be eradicated within a certain area and still return to it from an external area.
The English countryside (assumed to be less polluted) could have harbored these two diseases. Once the pollution in the cities abated, the disease returned. The word "eradicate" does not mean it is universally destroyed completely. It can be destroyed completely within certain bounds.
Take for example that smallpox was declared eradicated globally in 1980, but before that, it was eradicated in some regions while still persisting in others. For instance, it was eradicated in parts of North America and Europe due to widespread vaccination efforts, yet the disease continued to exist in other parts of the world where vaccination programs had not yet reached. This shows that eradication can refer to eliminating a disease within specific geographic or political boundaries, even if it still exists elsewhere. Had the vaccinations gone, smallpox would have returned to North America and Europe despite being declared eradicated in those regions at the time.
106 comments
finally a question that isn't from the depths of hell
My thoughts exactly lolll
i just laughed out loud
needed this real bad lmao
I think most of the LSAT writers are from Hell tbh
@mahidqaiser LMFAOOOO
remember: a level one question is worth as many points as a level five question. every correct answer is a win 🥶
gets it right - then looks at analytics tab Ah shit.
The dopamine hit I get when I hit submit and see the answer is circled green (visibly shakes)
Im more engaged doing this than watching a football game.
Haha same
Got excited again. One star. Guys. I gotta stop getting excited.
A win is a win
Skipped over D when I saw it "came back" because the word eradicated got me. DEEP sigh.
love it when he does the "Oooooookaaayyy??"
living for the getting it on the one level difficulty
This is the first strengthen question that I have gotten right and I felt great until I saw it was the easiest difficulty
A win is a win!
don't worry, we're all struggling, give it a little more time and practice and you're gonna be getting them all right
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
@Gertabarentos no seriously!
I was misled by the word 'eradicated'. My impression of this word is that it is gone (for good).
It would have made more sense if the hypothesis said 'It is likely that air pollution suppressed these diseases.", because it would imply that they could return should air pollution go away.
I thought this exact same thing, I'm glad I wasn't the only one.
Agreed! I felt the same way
i got it right but debated it for this reason as well. but watching the video back im now thinking i shouldnt have tripped up on it since in these questions types as stated in the stem we need to take the answer choices as all being true. so in this case that word wouldnt have mattered since we can assume that this did happen. i always forget these answers choices are true lol. so much to remember
That's how I got it wrong at first thankfully I reread D more carefully in my blind review
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.
Let's go guys, we all feasting on this question!!
I need another level 5 question to redeem myself from that last L smh
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!!
@SusanLeifker I had the exact same process, this question had me googling the definition before clicking submit
@SusanLeifker I also got tripped up by this. In hindsight, you could argue it was only eradicated in the polluted industrial cities, but not elsewhere. Leaving a way for the diseases to come back I guess? That' the only way I can make sense of it.
But Eradicate = gone for good !!
You could eradicate hate in a community, but have hate return in a few years. Eradication precludes nothing from the future. It simply states that at the current moment it is at zero. Which is the same as something disappearing, it is gone, it is zero.
Literally why I changed my answer from this!!
JY blessed us with a break by throwing a 1-star question at us
knew it was a 1 star..
@yesterdayseeker punching the air in satisfaction when i saw 100 on my answer choice but then i thought to myself "watch it be a one star"......surprise surprise
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
The conclusion from the stimulus is that the disease were "eradicated" by pollution. Doesn't the return of the diseases directly weaken the "eradication" section?
#help (Added by Admin)
In context, the word "eradicate" doesn't mean "gone forever, never to reappear." For example, see this definition and the example usage "polio has been eradicated"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/eradicate
But there are still several cases of polio each year.
this was my thought at first, but then after comparing it to my second choice, I understood it was a possibility for something "eradicated" to come back.
Is there a list of vocabulary words we can study? This question almost tripped me up, because my prior knowledge of "eradicate" meant "rid of it, destroy it forever."
There is no context in which the word eradicate does not mean this. The meaning is unambiguous: "to get rid of or destroy something completely".
With respect to polio, there were 30 cases of wild poliovirus Type I in 2022 globally, 0 Type 2, and 0 Type 3. Claims of eradication of polio are applicable to the latter two cases, which the WHO confirmed in 2015 and 2020 respectively.
This is a bad question that has no didactic value and serves only to undermine praxis. You should strongly consider pulling it and substituting it with a question which doesn't require a student to completely toss both the common understanding as well as the dictionary definition of a word to divine what the LSAT authors wanted them to think.
I wish that you guys would create an lsat mini dictionary for commonly used words from the test so that we can better assess how each word is being applied in each question. Even though I got this question correct sometimes the wording is very tricky on certain answer choices on the LSAT.
Nudging this! Super important I feel.
Respectfully, this is not a great attitude to have towards the test because you can't argue why you think you're right on test day. A wrong answer is still a wrong answer. The core curriculum has established already in foundations that this test and its vocabulary is designed to trick you. It's not unreasonable to view the word "eradicate" in the context of the question, rather than in the context of the real world. I understand from your perspective why it's so frustrating because the precision of words is key in both the LSAT and legal world. However, it doesn't matter if you think it's a bad question; it's a question (on the easy end of the scale) that appeared on a real test. Questions like this will be on future practices and tests. For your benefit, it's not worth it to complain about why you think the question is poorly worded.
The glaring misapprehension that you're proceeding under here is that I am arguing or would argue with LSAC. I'm arguing with 7Sage, a service that I pay for, over the value of its instruction when instead of recognizing the defective nature of this answer choice, they choose to bend over backwards to gaslight their customers as to why the indicated answer choice is correct and their customers' reasonable expectation consistent with prior instruction to assume the plain meaning of a word is now wrong in this one particular instance.
For your benefit, I'm going to offer some advice based on 2 careers across 35 years: If you don't at least challenge clear error that puts you, your client, or your employer at a loss, then you'll spend a large part of your career relegated to a cubicle doing scut work. Agreeable people get steamrolled in competitive environments.
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.
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
Even with the Flu kicking my ass I got it right sigh. HOPE EXIST
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.
e·rad·i·cate = destroy completely; put an end to. If the word "mitigate" was used then I could understand answer choice D being correct. #7Sage Help Me Please
Look at the introductory phrase "In English Cities". We are only talking about the cities in England and not in the countryside or cities in other countries. A disease can be eradicated within a certain area and still return to it from an external area.
The English countryside (assumed to be less polluted) could have harbored these two diseases. Once the pollution in the cities abated, the disease returned. The word "eradicate" does not mean it is universally destroyed completely. It can be destroyed completely within certain bounds.
Take for example that smallpox was declared eradicated globally in 1980, but before that, it was eradicated in some regions while still persisting in others. For instance, it was eradicated in parts of North America and Europe due to widespread vaccination efforts, yet the disease continued to exist in other parts of the world where vaccination programs had not yet reached. This shows that eradication can refer to eliminating a disease within specific geographic or political boundaries, even if it still exists elsewhere. Had the vaccinations gone, smallpox would have returned to North America and Europe despite being declared eradicated in those regions at the time.
Great point, thank you for the clarification.