#24 - Scientists, puzzled about the development of

[wwarui]

Hi Dave,

Question 24 is not clear at all. I do not seem to see the connection between the answer and the assumption in the question stem.


Thanks.

[Robert Carroll]

wwarui,

Look at the first sentence of the stimulus: "Scientists, puzzled about the development of penicillin resistant bacteria in patients who had not been taking penicillin, believe they have found an explanation." Why would scientists be puzzled about the development of penicillin resistant bacteria in patients who had not been taking penicillin? This is the unstated assumption - that there were some who did take penicillin and developed penicillin resistant bacteria. It's easy to explain that latter fact, as it's easy to explain why someone taking penicillin might develop bacteria resistant to it, but very difficult to explain why someone not taking penicillin would also develop bacteria resistant to it. So that assumption and the fact mentioned in the first sentence, taken together, create the puzzle that caused scientists to investigate the phenomenon and ultimately come up with the mercury explanation in the stimulus.

Robert

[wwarui]

Hi Robert:

Oh my goodness! I never saw this and so when I read the question I was so confused. I was trying to look for something else and, of course, I couldn't figure it out. I took this as part of an untimed test. I spent so much time on this question and I still got it wrong. When I saw the answer, I felt lost.

Thank you so much for clarifying this. Naturally, I have noticed that when I do not understand the stimulus I do not get the answers right.

[chiickenx]

Hi, may I please get some feedback on my blind review? In particular, I want to confirm my thoughts on (B) and (E). Thank you!
A.
No… the assumption is not a hypothesis… A hypothesis helps explain something… the unstated assumption doesn't explain anything. Thus, this is gone.
B.
The unstated assumption was a "some" statement, thus, it cannot be a generalization… also, it doesn't rule anything out….
C.
To put this in easier terms, think of alcohol. Wouldn’t it be puzzling to find someone who never drank alcohol, be able to tolerate drinking 10 shots? Wouldn’t you want to know why this person was able to do so? If you're like most people, i'm sure you would be interested. But ask yourself, why are you interested? Well… you're typically interested because that’s not normal… Rather, what is normal is alcoholics being able to tolerate 10 shots…. Not the other way around… As such, given the unstated assumption in the question stem, it helps us further understand why the problem is puzzling.
D.
No mechanisms of resistance were discussed tho… if anything, maybe only mechanism of the penicillin resistant bacteria flourishing was discussed…???? also, idk anything about previous research… so, this is out…
E.
Uhhh…. What? The assumption was a some statement; thus, it cannot be a generalization…

[James Finch]

Hi ChiikenX,

As to (B), I can see the "generalization" being true, but what falsifies this answer choice is that it definitely doesn't invalidate the premise that some patients who don't take penicillin nevertheless develop bacteria with penicillin resistance. So that second part of (B) is what makes it incorrect.

Regarding (E), same as with (B) I don't have a necessary problem with "generalization," but rather the "conclusively prove...must involve reference to genetic makeup," which makes no sense. The unstated assumption creates a paradox that the stimulus needs to solve, via an alternate cause (mercury rather direct exposure to penicillin), it doesn't show how to actually solve that paradox.

Hope this helps!

[chiickenx]

Hi, James! thanks for replying. In any case, im still confused. What is a generalization exactly? I was always under the assumption that it must either be a "most" or an "all" statement. I did not know that a "some" statement could be a generalization as well.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi chiickenx,

A generalization is, in a technical sense, "a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases," and, in a non-technical sense, "a general statement, law, principle, or proposition." The technical sense gives us a little better flavor for what we're looking for: a statement made applicable to a broader set than just an individual instance or a few individual instances. How wide does that broader group have to be? It's not entirely certain. So, I wouldn't limit the use of the term "generalization" to just those statements that refer to "most" or "all" of a group. For example, one could generalize from something one observes, and say that thing happens "frequently," without necessarily implying it happens all of the time, or even more often than not. And keep in mind that the term "some," as the logical opposite of none, is broad enough to potentially include "all" or "most" within it. So as a pure definitional matter, "some" could be read to apply to others beyond the individuals a statement is being drawn from.

Now, is this particular assumption in the question stem a true "generalization," in the sense that it's taking an experience of one or a few instances and applying it to a broader set? It's not entirely clear, and I think it's fair to read it as James has. But, as he points out, there are other, better reasons to reject answer choices B and E, so we don't have to read that one (slightly nebulous) term as dispositive.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy