I think it comes down to how the microbiologist argues about correlation/causation. We're not trying to justify why resistance to heavy metals causes resistance to antibiotics, rather why exposure to heavy metals causes resistances. A ignores the heavy metals in the microbiologist's argument, which is a major point. They're trying to say A->B/HM Exposure -> Res.HM and B=C/Res.HM=Res.AntiB, therefore A->C/HM Exposure -> Res.AntiB, not that Res.HM->Res.AntiB.* A only strengthens an already established point, that Res.AntiB and Res.HM are likely related. B instead rules out other factors that could be causing the resistances, thus supporting the fact that heavy metal exposure likely causes them.

Hope this makes sense, sorry if this is kinda word salad!

When I use the blind review method, I kinda do it like this!

1. First try the question, doing my best to get within the target time. Sometimes this means I don't get to spend a lot of time thinking about answers or dissecting the meaning of the passage. This is what step 2 is for!

2. Blind review step! I go through the question again, this time without a time limit. I go through the passage, often reading it out loud, and I talk myself through each of the possible answers. For each answer (a,b,c.. etc) I make note of what I think makes it right or wrong in the answer box. I also look at which answer I chose, and try to figure out why I chose it the first time, and whether I still think I'm right on further review!

3. Finish the question, and find out the correct answer!

This has been working out really well for me so far (obvs can be customized to fit your best learning methods) and even though it's a bit time consuming I really recommend it! LMK if anyone has any other ideas.