This wasn’t so bad. The conclusion was focusin on data sets between the two. So that for me immediately eliminated all except B and D. I was going to pick D, but then remembered that ideal experiment— which rendered B correct
This question made my balls ache...I got this question right without really understanding what the premise was saying( I hate science topics), so here was my train of thought.
Summary of Stim
-2 molecules in weed killer brand(both mirror images)
-one kills weeds, the other does fuck all
-effectiveness dependent on local soil conditions cuz of molecule concentration in the soil? (what does that even mean), different soil different reaction?
Conc: Data of effects is BS
Thought process behind picking an answer
A) Just repeats second point, bye bye
B) Equally concentrated? Equally likely? But its effectiveness is soil dependent? They ignored the truth of the prem! Gotcha!
C)Has nothing to do with data, pce
D)Literally weakens Conc that the data is BS, go away
E) Literally a word salad, sounds good but doesn't fit into the premise. Its attractive because it states that the Data is BS, but its also wrong because thats the only thing its doing.
A) repeats things mentioned int he stim and doesn't actually explain the issue with the data.
C) Doesn't speak to the data. Also, if the one that kills weeds is more concentrated then what is the outcome of this and why isn't the data clear cut and just simply put weed killers as effective?
D) Somewhat weakens it.
E) Only targets a subset. It ignores the other molecule. So it doesn't explain as a whole why the data for both are misleading.
B) Correct. Says that nearly all the data is collected from 1 style of testing where both molecules are equally concentrated in soil and the outcome is that they equally break down. this data is misleading. Instead the researchers should try concentrating more of one molecule and vice versa to see which is more likely to be favoured in the soil. (also in my opinion testing thing in an equal manner does nothing while especially getting equal results. In instances like this the thing tested can't be determined good or bad. A clear deficit is needed.
why doesn't the conclusion matter in this problem, they focused on strengthening the experiment intstead of the final misleading. like how was the lab misleading if the lab tests are very detailed, I'm a little confused
I had D selected for so long, until prior to submission I reread B, and it made sense that if both forms are present in lab studies using perfectly balanced soil which breaks down both molecule types equally, then the results would be misleading. Especially since the chemist makes the argument that the breakdown of both forms varies greatly on the local soil type, it is never perfectly balanced and distributed as a controlled lab study.
I've been drilling myself on ideal experiments a bunch, and so I just wanted to make the experiment ideal... and having a good science spot to control all the variables seemed so nice and science-y that I chose D, but that made the science bad (sad face)
I kind of thought of this question as the chemist critiquing the marketing/commercial of this weed killer.
The chemist concludes (simplified) that the data regarding this weed killer is misleading because its effectiveness is dependent on individual soil conditions. Could effectiveness differences be the intention of the weed killer developers? The chemist seems to say no (or else he would not be critiquing the case-by-case soil difference). Hence, the gap in the reasoning is what data is the chemist comparing the weed killer's effectiveness to? I predicted that there must be something wrong about the way the weedkiller was advertised/what promises does it make?
B) Fills in this blank as it says that the weed killer's developers tested it in perfect, unrealistic conditions. Thus, it fills in the chemist's assumption that the actual effectiveness of the weed killer does not match the intended effectiveness because of a data flaw. Therefore, the developer's data cannot be correct.
The phrasing of this one was BRUTAL. wtf kind of weed killer doesn't kill weeds? Why wouldn't you think of another name for that entity?!
15
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!
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.
107 comments
This section is making me not want to pursue law school :)
This wasn’t so bad. The conclusion was focusin on data sets between the two. So that for me immediately eliminated all except B and D. I was going to pick D, but then remembered that ideal experiment— which rendered B correct
Yo this question fucking sucked. Shoutout to the guy who said it made him feel like he’s the one smoking killer weed.
Questions like these make me feel like I'm smoking killer weed.
gosh I hate science so much :/
This question made my balls ache...I got this question right without really understanding what the premise was saying( I hate science topics), so here was my train of thought.
Summary of Stim
-2 molecules in weed killer brand(both mirror images)
-one kills weeds, the other does fuck all
-effectiveness dependent on local soil conditions cuz of molecule concentration in the soil? (what does that even mean), different soil different reaction?
Conc: Data of effects is BS
Thought process behind picking an answer
A) Just repeats second point, bye bye
B) Equally concentrated? Equally likely? But its effectiveness is soil dependent? They ignored the truth of the prem! Gotcha!
C)Has nothing to do with data, pce
D)Literally weakens Conc that the data is BS, go away
E) Literally a word salad, sounds good but doesn't fit into the premise. Its attractive because it states that the Data is BS, but its also wrong because thats the only thing its doing.
four years of being a chemistry major definitely helped me here though i still took 2 minutes to answer :/
I really need to exorcise the demon in my brain that takes over when i read science questions…
took way too long, but I got this thang right
I didn't say it... I declared it - Michael Scott
Any tips on how to tackle weakening and strengthening questions? I am feeling defeated by this topic.
#Feedback it is much more helpful when you mark where he speaks about each answer so I can skip to the answer choices I struggled with
Hello this is what I got from this:
A) repeats things mentioned int he stim and doesn't actually explain the issue with the data.
C) Doesn't speak to the data. Also, if the one that kills weeds is more concentrated then what is the outcome of this and why isn't the data clear cut and just simply put weed killers as effective?
D) Somewhat weakens it.
E) Only targets a subset. It ignores the other molecule. So it doesn't explain as a whole why the data for both are misleading.
B) Correct. Says that nearly all the data is collected from 1 style of testing where both molecules are equally concentrated in soil and the outcome is that they equally break down. this data is misleading. Instead the researchers should try concentrating more of one molecule and vice versa to see which is more likely to be favoured in the soil. (also in my opinion testing thing in an equal manner does nothing while especially getting equal results. In instances like this the thing tested can't be determined good or bad. A clear deficit is needed.
Does anyone else tend to miss the "easier" questions while getting the more difficult ones right? So frustrating!
why doesn't the conclusion matter in this problem, they focused on strengthening the experiment intstead of the final misleading. like how was the lab misleading if the lab tests are very detailed, I'm a little confused
I had D selected for so long, until prior to submission I reread B, and it made sense that if both forms are present in lab studies using perfectly balanced soil which breaks down both molecule types equally, then the results would be misleading. Especially since the chemist makes the argument that the breakdown of both forms varies greatly on the local soil type, it is never perfectly balanced and distributed as a controlled lab study.
Strengthening questions are absolutely brutal. Any recommendations on how to tackle them?
I've been drilling myself on ideal experiments a bunch, and so I just wanted to make the experiment ideal... and having a good science spot to control all the variables seemed so nice and science-y that I chose D, but that made the science bad (sad face)
I put E, I did not even think about B...
I kind of thought of this question as the chemist critiquing the marketing/commercial of this weed killer.
The chemist concludes (simplified) that the data regarding this weed killer is misleading because its effectiveness is dependent on individual soil conditions. Could effectiveness differences be the intention of the weed killer developers? The chemist seems to say no (or else he would not be critiquing the case-by-case soil difference). Hence, the gap in the reasoning is what data is the chemist comparing the weed killer's effectiveness to? I predicted that there must be something wrong about the way the weedkiller was advertised/what promises does it make?
B) Fills in this blank as it says that the weed killer's developers tested it in perfect, unrealistic conditions. Thus, it fills in the chemist's assumption that the actual effectiveness of the weed killer does not match the intended effectiveness because of a data flaw. Therefore, the developer's data cannot be correct.
Blind review always got my back
┗(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)┓
As a chem major I greatly enjoyed this
I got it right. Figured almost all is a close stand in for most. Not sure if thats enough but it worked this time.
No way this isn't a 5/5 difficulty
The phrasing of this one was BRUTAL. wtf kind of weed killer doesn't kill weeds? Why wouldn't you think of another name for that entity?!