#16 - Researchers studying artificial sweeteners have long

[grunerlokka]

I have three related questions for #16:
1. The exact same question as Coleman above (I also do not see how B can be ruled out), and on a related note:

2. I would like to query the underlined part of this explanation by JPress earlier above: "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." The B answer does not however say "will activate a sweetness receptor" (although the "in sufficient quantity" bit might suggest this?), B says "can activate", which is not as strong as JPress' response seems to present it. Perhaps your response to Coleman will resolve this, but I just wanted to check what was going on here.

3. Lastly, I thought C was wrong because it seemed "too strong", mainly because the way the stimuli is structured does not rule out the possibility that only "one atom", for example, could be sufficient to activate a sweetness receptor. C seems to only work as a correct answer if we assume that "one molecule" is the smallest possible sweetness-activating-unit but that is not indicated to be the case in the stimuli (or am I missing something?) - is it not "general knowledge" that atoms exist and they are smaller than molecules and constitute them? Help!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi grunnerloka and Coleman!

Let's respond to your common question first. In a Must be True question like this, we need explicit support in the stimulus for our answer choice. In other words, the stimulus needs to unequivocally inform us that our answer choice is correct. So Coleman, when you say, "there is nothing wrong or contradiction in this statement based on the information given in the passage," that is not a sufficient reason for picking a Must be True answer! You are right that nothing contradicts (B), but there is also nothing that supports it! It's not enough for an answer choice to possibly be true. This is a Must be True question! The stimulus never says anything about how any substance, given enough quantity, definitely is capable of activating a sweetness receptor. (As a real life example, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much dirt a person puts in their mouth, it's not going to be activating any sweetness receptors.) A good test is to try and point to the part in the passage that explicitly supports your answer choice. For (B), there simply isn't one. Again, our stimulus needs to give explicit support for our right answer. It does so for (A) (see previous responses), while it doesn't at all for (B).

Ok grunnerloka, onto your other two questions.

2) You are right that (B) only says "can", not "will". But again, there is no support whatsoever in the stimulus for saying that it Must be True that every substance, given enough quantity, can activate a sweetness receptor. It doesn't matter how "not strong" an answer choice is, it still needs to be explicitly made true by the stimulus.

3) The possibility of an atom of sweetener is not really left open by the passage where it says, "the fewer molecules that are required to activate a receptor, the sweeter that substance will be perceived to be". This sets up # of molecules as the sole measure of sweetness, which strongly supports the idea that a substance which requires only one molecule to activate a receptor is the strongest possible perceivable substance. And no, I seriously doubt that the LSAC would hold "an atom is smaller than a molecule" to be common knowledge.

(Even if they did - the possibly of an atom activating a sweetener receptor makes very little sense in real life. I'm far from a science guy but a substance like a sweetener is a chemical compound of which the smallest possible component (while retaining its structure) is a molecule. From there, the molecule can be broken down into its atoms, but at that point it is no longer a sweetener, since an atom is merely the smallest possible amount of a periodic element (hydrogen, helium, etc.). So there is no such thing as an "atom of sweetener", rather our little lone molecule of sweetener can only be broken down further into one atom of hydrogen, one atom of sodium, etc. So your issue with (C) makes little sense in practical terms (unless we're leaving open the dubious possibility that a single atom of a heretofore undiscovered periodic element is sufficient to activate a sweetness receptor), in addition to being effectively ruled out by the passage).

Hope that helps!

[litigationqueen]

Can we use conditional logic in this question to disprove E?

Any molecule --> 1 sweetness receptor

the fewer molecules needed to activate receptor --> sweeter the substance

The last sentence says that researchers found a substance in which only 1 molecule is needed to activate "any" sweetness receptor, which we know to be a maximum of 1 based on the stimulus. Since 1 is the least/fewest amount possible, assuming there can't be a -1 molecule, the substance that the researchers found must be the sweetest it could possibly be. This proves answer choice C.

Answer Choice E says that the more molecules of a substance required to activate, the more bitter the substance. Could this be considered an illegal negation, hence disproving E?

Please advise. Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

litigation,

There is no indication in the stimulus that "bitter" is the logical opposite of "sweet". Thus, I don't think the interpretation of answer choice (E) as a Mistaken Negation is appropriate. It's even worse than a Mistaken Negation - it relies on properties of bitterness that the stimulus doesn't address at all. So it fails the Fact Test more straightforwardly than even a Mistaken Negation would.

Robert Carroll

[CJ12345:]

Hi, powerscore,
I still have a question for AC D. Why it is not possible we might find another substance of which only 1/3 molecule is needed to activate any sweetness receptor? if this is the case, according to the stimulus (the fewer molecules that are required to activate a receptor, the sweeter that substance will be perceived to be), would it be possible that C "no substance" is too strong?

[Robert Carroll]

CJ12345:,

The issue is that 1/3 of a molecule isn't the same substance. Molecules are countable things - you can have two, two thousand, or two million molecules, but half a molecule is no longer the same substance. This is implicit in the notion of "fewer" molecules in the stimulus. I can have fewer chocolate candies for dessert; I can have less oatmeal for breakfast. I can't have "fewer" oatmeal, because oatmeal can't be counted. So there is no such thing as 1/3 of a molecule of a substance.

Robert Carroll