Q21 - Chemist: The molecules of a certain

[yoohoo081]

Could you explain the answer choices please?
Is B correct because lab environment is limited and in the real world it's not applicable like in the lab, so the data is misleading?

Please explain. Thank you!

[LSAT-Chang]

I had no idea where the conclusion came from. I don't understand why the chemist is all of a sudden concluding that the data on the effects of "this weed-killer" are probably misleading. So I tried to approach the question by looking to strengthen that this data is misleading... but... since I don't understand how the author got to the conclusion, I didn't quite get how we were supposed to strengthen it. So I have no idea at all how (B) strengthens the statement... Could someone kindly walk through the argument and the answer choices?

[ilona11223344]

Could you explain the answer choices please?
Is B correct because lab environment is limited and in the real world it's not applicable like in the lab, so the data is misleading?

Please explain. Thank you!

I got this one wrong when taking the test but I have just figured out why (B) strengthens after reviewing the test:

Argument talks about what happens to weed-killer effectiveness in local soil conditions and how it can vary and then concludes that some data on the effects of the weed-killer is incorrect. Evidence didn't mention anything about any data.

So, to strengthen the conclusion that data is incorrect, you need something that says 'the data collected didn't accurately measure the effects of the wee-killer' - and (B) does that by showing that the lab studies didn't mimic what actually happens to the weed-killers in real soil, and as a result, if study wasn't based on actual effects, how can the data be accurate?

I had (D) originally, but (D) actually weakens the conclusion because it would prove that the data was accurate since it was measured under real conditions mentioned in evidence

Hope this helps!

[LSAT-Chang]

I had (D) originally, but (D) actually weakens the conclusion because it would prove that the data was accurate since it was measured under real conditions mentioned in evidence

Hope this helps!

Thanks for the great explanation! I originally chose (D) as well but had absolutely no reason to choose any of the answer choices since I didn't even understand where the conclusion came from so just froze when I went to the answer choices. I can clearly see how (D) weakens it and how (B) does strengthen the conclusion.

[giladedelman]

Yes, good explanation!

I was in the same boat as some of you guys: I had no clue where the conclusion comes from. But that's not an excuse to give up! What that means, as the previous poster said, is that we need an answer that brings the out-of-left-field component of the conclusion into focus. We need to know how we can conclude that the data is misleading.

Now, what we know is that the concentration of the two kinds of molecules -- one that kills weeds, one that does nothing -- varies widely in soil. So (B) would strengthen the argument that the data is misleading because if the lab conditions feature equal concentrations of the two molecules, how is this going to help us judge how the weed-killer will actually behave in real life?

(A) is incorrect because it just says that the premise is generally true of weed-killers. Whatever.

(C) is incorrect because it tells us nada about the data.

(D) indeed weakens the argument by suggesting that the data is good.

(E) is tempting, but we don't know whether the data is based on this or not!

[shirando21]

Yes, good explanation!

I was in the same boat as some of you guys: I had no clue where the conclusion comes from. But that's not an excuse to give up! What that means, as the previous poster said, is that we need an answer that brings the out-of-left-field component of the conclusion into focus. We need to know how we can conclude that the data is misleading.

Now, what we know is that the concentration of the two kinds of molecules -- one that kills weeds, one that does nothing -- varies widely in soil. So (B) would strengthen the argument that the data is misleading because if the lab conditions feature equal concentrations of the two molecules, how is this going to help us judge how the weed-killer will actually behave in real life?

(A) is incorrect because it just says that the premise is generally true of weed-killers. Whatever.

(C) is incorrect because it tells us nada about the data.

(D) indeed weakens the argument by suggesting that the data is good.

(E) is tempting, but we don't know whether the data is based on this or not!

If the reason we emilinate E is that we don't know whether the data is based on on this or not, then how do we know in B if data are drawn from those equally concentrated and eaullly break down ?

Aren't we assuming what is in the choices are true, and see if that is true, if it will strengthen the argument?

And then I don't know what is a good reason to eliminate E.

Anyone can think of a convining good reason?

[shirando21]

Maybe just B is better strengthen than E.

[mrsam723]

(E) brings up another type of study that could be used, but we don't know if it was. It seems to be just general information. So, even if (E) is true it has no affect on the argument based on what we know from the stimulus.

(B) in contrast does relate back specifically to the argument by ascribing a damaging attribute to almost all existing studies.

[tzyc]

Still unclear between (B) and (E)...why is B better than E??
Could anyone rephrase what those two say?
"misleading" in the conclusion means the data is inaccurate? Make people misunderstand about the effect?
(E) is wrong because it does not examine just one of them??
Confused...

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's try to clarify (B) vs. (E):

As a recap, this weed-killer has two molecule forms we'll call A and B.

A kills weeds. B does nothing.

When you apply the weed killer to SOME soil, the soil breaks down most of the A and leaves almost all B. In this type of soil, the weed-killer would do very little, because B does nothing.

When you apply the weed killer to OTHER soil, the soil breaks down most of the B and leaves almost all A. In this type of soil, the weed-killer would do well, because A is a stone cold killa!

The author tells us that local soil conditions vary widely, so we can expect that in some soil the weed-killer will do great and in other soil the weed-killer will do terribly.

(B) says that in almost all the lab testing they've done, the soil had equal concentrations of A and B and A and B were equally likely to break down.

Well, according to the stimulus, that's NOT a good simulation of reality. In reality, there's usually more A or more B, not an equal distribution of both.

So (B) weakens by telling us that the experimental testing conditions (that gave us "the data") don't reflect reality (thus, they are misleading).

(E), meanwhile, says hypothetically that if you did an experiment and ONLY measured the effects of A or ONLY measured the effects of B, then you would get really misleading data.

Okay, cool. But DID anyone do a study that ONLY measured A or ONLY measured B?

One crucial difference between (B) and (E) (which a previous poster was saying) is that (B) refers to actual studies that gave us the actual data on the weed-killer. (E) is referring to hypothetical data that would come from a type of study that may or may not have occurred.

Hope this helps.

[LaneR922]

So for this i was thinking d was correct answer because it says the data draws from a variety of conditions similar to those in which weed killer I s normally applied
Now, I read elsewhere that answer choice d actually weakens the argument because it derives from a variety of conditions which makes sense
But for me, the qualifying language about similar to those in which weed killer is normally applied suggested to me that the data was biased...that is, it was drawn from areas in which the soil was conducive to breaking down the killing molecule, not the no effect moleuccule.

I eliminated correct answer b on basis that equal concentrations would indicate the data is not misleading because you there is equal and fair likelihood of the results occurring naturally, or rather, in the proper, unadulterated scientific way.

For the record my pre-phrased answer was something like: find the answer choice that provides insight into a botched data collection process
Perhaps, Too broad?
This one has languishing language for sure which makes right answer difficult to spot.

[GolddiggerF208]

Just record my PoE process:

The conclusion mentions "data" and the premise preceding mentions "soil". What we know is: (1) two forms of weed-killer, of which one is effective but the other is not; and (2) soil makes a contribution to the effectiveness in practice for it can break down one form without harming the other.

POE:

No "data" in (A), (C) - probably incorrect answers.
No "soil" in (E) - probably incorrect answer.

As to (B) and (D)

- (B) explicits that the laboratory studies do not simulate the real soil - obviously weakening the laboratory studies but strengthening the conclusion (the data is misleading)

- (D) actually says the laboratory studies have taken the soil conditions into consideration - obviously confirming the accuracy of the laboratory studies and weakening the conclusion (the data is not misleading)

So I come to (B)