#16 - Researchers studying artificial sweeteners have long

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

For this question, i had a problem picking the answer, since I did not like none of them. I though that C was better than all of them, but ended up picking E. However, for C, we cannot predict the future, we cannot know that the researchers will not discover a substance that will be periceved more sweeter. From my experience with LR, it the answers that predict the future are more likely wrong. Since, we cannot really predict the future. And this is what Answer choice C is exactly doing. Please let me know why answer choice is better than the others.

Thanks in advance,

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi ellenb,

Thanks for your question. In that one, the author provides that the fewer molecules required of a substance to activate a sweetness receptor, the sweeter that substance is.

And, the author tells us that researchers have found a substance that requires only one molecule for sweetness receptor activation--nothing can activate a sweetness receptor with no molecules, so it doesn't get any sweeter than this new substance--and that is provided by correct answer choice C.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

thanks Steve, I understood that one molecule will make the receptors think that the substance is super sweet, however, I thought that it is a very strong statement to say that they will not find anything sweeter than that? that is what I had a problem with the strength of the statement. They could possibly make one that would seem sweeter, we just do not know for sure on way or the other. And the answer seems very categorical.
Thanks

Ellen

[ellenb]

Sorry, I meant to have a follow-up question with this, so there can never be anything sweeter since one molecule it is the sweetest that we can go? It just seems such a strong statement to say that we will not be having anything sweeter in the future.

Thanks
Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi ellenb,

Thanks for your response. This is a tough one! The author provides that the activation of the sweetness receptor determines our perception of sweetness. Again, the fewer molecules required, the sweeter the substance is perceived to be.

Now they have a substance that can activate the sweetness receptor with a single molecule, and the stimulus also provides that no molecule can activate more than one sweetness receptor. That supports the idea the this new substance's record for "most sweet" can be tied (if another substance can also activate a receptor with a single molecule), but not beaten (since no single molecule can activate more than one receptor).

I hope this is helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[na02]

Hi,

I can't seem to rule out B;
I took "sufficient quantity" to mean "at least one" and so molecules can activate a sweetness receptor because the stimulus says "any given individual molecule of substance" --> Is this "substance" referring only to "artificial sweeteners," and thus the "any" substance in the answer choice makes it wrong?

Thank you

[Jeremy Press]

Ni na02,

Very good question about how to read the language in this tricky Must Be True question.

First, when the stimulus refers to a "substance" (e.g. in the phrase you identified, "any given molecule of substance"), the term "substance" is not being limited to artificial sweeteners. If the stimulus meant that limitation to be read into "substance," it would say so explicitly. That's because the dictionary definition of substance is much broader than artificial sweeteners, and if the LSAT expects you to read the term "substance" differently than its dictionary definition, it will say that explicitly.

I think your confusion may be coming from the interpretation of the broader claim that phrase falls within. The broader claim is that "any given individual molecule of substance can activate at most one sweetness receptor." That means any given molecule is limited, maximum ("at most"), to activating one sweetness receptor. However, that does not mean that any given molecule will necessarily activate a sweetness receptor. The maximum ("at most") language allows for the possibility that individual molecules of some substances will activate no sweetness receptors. Since the stimulus allows for that possibility, B does not have to be true.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ameliakate]

Hi!

I selected answer choice B during a timed section, and then selected answer choice E during a blind review. I now understand why answer choice C is correct, but I wanted to clarify why answer choice E was incorrect.

On further review, it seems as if answer choice E is playing on logical opposites. The smallest amount of molecules to activate sweetness = sweet whereas more molecules = less sweet (or not sweet). Instead, answer choice E translates less sweet to bitterness, which is not supported in the stimulus.

Is this correct, or am I wandering off path?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Looks right on target, ameliakate! Answer E would have been good if it had said "the less sweet that substance will be perceived to be," which would be a good logical opposite, but "less sweet" cannot be interpreted to mean "more bitter." Maybe it would be perceived as saltier, or more sour, or just less sweet. Nicely done!

[Coleman]

I understand why C should be the correct answer choice here, but B seems pretty convincing as well in this Must Be True question.
B states "IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY, the molecules of any substance can activate a sweetness receptor." In my reasoning, since these molecules were given with sufficient quantity to turn on a sweetness receptor, there is nothing wrong or contradiction in this statement based on the information given in the passage.
I'm aware that the substance may or may not activate the receptor because it was mentioned that it would activate only one receptor 'at most.' However, isn't it valid to say that the sweetness receptor will be turned on if the molecules were given sufficiently?
I'm not sure what should be the extent of sufficient quantity that we have to draw in order to interpret the statement appropriately.
Could you explain what is the implication of "sufficient quantity" in this statement?