i think i got this wrong bc I thought that B meant it was a controlled experiment so therefore would be reliable and weaken the argument. I didn't relate the lab aspect of it to the local soil aspect in the stimulus. smh
tldr; experiment design framework (my take). The conclusion essentially states that something's wrong with the design of the experiment. Therefore, answers that fix the experiment will weaken the conclusion, and answers that spell out the flaw will strengthen the conclusion.
The premises state that there are two things that hard to control for: concentration of killer molecules in the bag and effective concentration (proportion of killer molecules in the soil).
(C) pretends to strengthen the experiment by saying that we don't need need to control for one of the two variables (molecule breakdown in the soil)
(D) pretends to strengthen the experiment by controlling for one of the two variables (molecule breakdown in the soil)
(E) pretends to weaken by asserting that only one of the two molecule forms was analyzed
(A) pretends to control for the difference between the molecule forms by reiterating the information from the stimulus
(B) weakens the argument by showing that the experiment controls neither for the concentration in the bag nor for the concentration in the soil.
it's like weaving through all the bs to find the keywords to see what the author is saying in a stimulus. "data" was the key here. what about the data? the data is confusing and unreliable because of xyz (something about the soil being confusing or having 2 different types or something).
B was the only choice around data along with 1-2 bait choices.
@Isabella! A hypothesis would explain the facts that we observe. In other words, why is it that the molecules are always present in two forms? Why does one form kill weeds, and the other has no effect?
Does the data being misleading explain these facts? No, so it is not a hypothesis. Rather, it's a conclusion drawn from the facts.
took me 9 mins, but I got it!! Biggest shoutout to those that can answer questions under time. Trying to get to that point eventually!! Diagramming helped me a lot in this question
If you got this wrong, you're gonna hate the science passages in RC!
In hindsight, seeing the correct answer made it easier to understand that the conclusion pointing towards poor methodology due to having a not ideal experiment. The problem was the phenomena was so heavy that my mind was turned to mush from the blender by the time I reached the conclusion/hypothesis.
Answer B is correct because it provides a study in which the effects are misleading based on what we know. The question tells us that the effectiveness of a weed killer is based on which molecules are more present in concentration in the soil. Answer B is providing that the data is based on equal concentrations in soil which is misleading. Thus Answer B supports the conclusion.
what helped me get this one right was use POE and get rid of the two answer choices that don't mention the data, since the truthfulness of the data is in the main conclusion.
@WendellAdom from my understanding it basically goes against the conclusion and is the ideal experiment by using different kinds of soils. But because the conslusion is saying that the data is misleading we need something that is going to strengthen that support on why it is misleading and B answers that by basically saying that they used the molecules equally all in one soil which is not the ideal experiment.
@WendellAdom The conclusion is that the data on the weed killer is misleading (wrong). D would mean the study was well conducted, which would make the data more "correct". So it goes against the conclusion that the data is "wrong".
Ok so for this question I got it wrong the first time and on BR I got it right, so this is how I saw it during BR, the conclusion said that it was misleading, defenitely a section of the argument was already misleading, however, on the other hand the first part was not misleading, so I had to make that misleading for the conclusion to make sense and therefore the argument to be strengthen.,
What got me to get B was that D specifies the conditions in which the killer is applied normally (which we don't know anyway, but it says if true, so...). Still, it doesn't attack the biggest reason for the conclusion. The breakdown.
It is tricky because it talks about the variety of testing situations, but we don't know those, and the premise discusses the variety of soil within context of breakdown of chemicals.
So, B sat stronger to me as it discussed this point.
147 comments
i think i got this wrong bc I thought that B meant it was a controlled experiment so therefore would be reliable and weaken the argument. I didn't relate the lab aspect of it to the local soil aspect in the stimulus. smh
tldr; experiment design framework (my take). The conclusion essentially states that something's wrong with the design of the experiment. Therefore, answers that fix the experiment will weaken the conclusion, and answers that spell out the flaw will strengthen the conclusion.
The premises state that there are two things that hard to control for: concentration of killer molecules in the bag and effective concentration (proportion of killer molecules in the soil).
(C) pretends to strengthen the experiment by saying that we don't need need to control for one of the two variables (molecule breakdown in the soil)
(D) pretends to strengthen the experiment by controlling for one of the two variables (molecule breakdown in the soil)
(E) pretends to weaken by asserting that only one of the two molecule forms was analyzed
(A) pretends to control for the difference between the molecule forms by reiterating the information from the stimulus
(B) weakens the argument by showing that the experiment controls neither for the concentration in the bag nor for the concentration in the soil.
My PhD in Chemistry is finally useful loool
If it makes anyone feel better, I am an environmental chemistry major and got this wrong on both normal answer and blind review.
it's like weaving through all the bs to find the keywords to see what the author is saying in a stimulus. "data" was the key here. what about the data? the data is confusing and unreliable because of xyz (something about the soil being confusing or having 2 different types or something).
B was the only choice around data along with 1-2 bait choices.
Finally seeing improvements!
i literally do not understand WSE questions :( im doing so bad
@mks me too
I feel like I'm slowly getting better at the science based questions and its jargon! Repetition and exposure really is the answer huh
Got emmmmmm. let's go!
I'm confused on how the conclusion is not a hypothesis?!
@Isabella! A hypothesis would explain the facts that we observe. In other words, why is it that the molecules are always present in two forms? Why does one form kill weeds, and the other has no effect?
Does the data being misleading explain these facts? No, so it is not a hypothesis. Rather, it's a conclusion drawn from the facts.
took me 9 mins, but I got it!! Biggest shoutout to those that can answer questions under time. Trying to get to that point eventually!! Diagramming helped me a lot in this question
If you got this wrong, you're gonna hate the science passages in RC!
In hindsight, seeing the correct answer made it easier to understand that the conclusion pointing towards poor methodology due to having a not ideal experiment. The problem was the phenomena was so heavy that my mind was turned to mush from the blender by the time I reached the conclusion/hypothesis.
Answer B is correct because it provides a study in which the effects are misleading based on what we know. The question tells us that the effectiveness of a weed killer is based on which molecules are more present in concentration in the soil. Answer B is providing that the data is based on equal concentrations in soil which is misleading. Thus Answer B supports the conclusion.
got it in BR
Got it in BR and I know EXACTLY why I fell for that trap answer 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
yayyy got this with 27 seconds left to spare. These WSE questions are hurting my brain lol
i dont know why but these WSE questions take me so much longer than any other question type
I could not get past the very first sentence cause WTF??!?!?!
what helped me get this one right was use POE and get rid of the two answer choices that don't mention the data, since the truthfulness of the data is in the main conclusion.
This question actually made my head hurt
Ive been struggling on the weakening questions, and I am so suprised that I got this one right, got to take the small victories when I get them :)
I did not understand this question at all wow
how does D Weaken?
@WendellAdom from my understanding it basically goes against the conclusion and is the ideal experiment by using different kinds of soils. But because the conslusion is saying that the data is misleading we need something that is going to strengthen that support on why it is misleading and B answers that by basically saying that they used the molecules equally all in one soil which is not the ideal experiment.
@WendellAdom The conclusion is that the data on the weed killer is misleading (wrong). D would mean the study was well conducted, which would make the data more "correct". So it goes against the conclusion that the data is "wrong".
i suck so bad at stregthen and weaken questions.
@KeziaH19 No literally I keep getting down to the last two and choosing the wrong one
Ok so for this question I got it wrong the first time and on BR I got it right, so this is how I saw it during BR, the conclusion said that it was misleading, defenitely a section of the argument was already misleading, however, on the other hand the first part was not misleading, so I had to make that misleading for the conclusion to make sense and therefore the argument to be strengthen.,
@LauraBolivar
What got me to get B was that D specifies the conditions in which the killer is applied normally (which we don't know anyway, but it says if true, so...). Still, it doesn't attack the biggest reason for the conclusion. The breakdown.
It is tricky because it talks about the variety of testing situations, but we don't know those, and the premise discusses the variety of soil within context of breakdown of chemicals.
So, B sat stronger to me as it discussed this point.