- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
I think for A, it actually does have a point. when considering the conclusion you might ask what if its the other way around, only bacteria have resistance to antibotic will get reisistance to heavy medal, thats why all the bacteria that survied and had develped reistance to heavy meadal has reistance because reistance of antibotic came first. but i guess the conclusion was about exposure to heavy medal but not reistance to poision.
but if you say develop greater resitance -> /elininate completely, I think thats also true. just for this question, I really dont know. I think if you apply that logic to any other question it would be true. greater resistance -> /eliminate
which is same as eliminate->/greater resistanee
if you eliminated it completely it must mean that it did not grow resistance, how could it grow resistance if you killed in compleetely. which contradict the statement above.
its very strange for this problem, for somehow I think R -> /E is also correct, which contradict /E -> R, if it became stronger then it must mean that it did not kill it completely, if you Eliminate it completely how will it still grow stronger. will you explain please.
what if the statement is " I will become stronger unless you killed me", it translate to /kill -> stronger, /stronger -> kill, which is if you do not kill me then I will be stronger, if im not stronger then you must've killed me. but wouldnt "kill -> /stronger" and "stronger->/kill also be true, but in this case it will be confusing necc with suffi. if you killed me of course I will not be stronger, and if I am stronger of course you did not kill me.
I was thinking even the authors dies you could still give the rewards to his family.