LSAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- jisungm589
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: August 29th, 2020
Re: Q17
B: The Human body's temperature is the temperature the ocean must reach to awaken V. Cholerae bacteria from their dormant State.
E: The human body is an environment in which dormant V Cholerae bacteria can awaken.
I got to these two answers, after my initial crossing out the wrong ones.
Human body temp is about 98°F; Let's say V Cholerae needs to reach 85°F.
If such, than we can see that E is true, because anything 85°F and over, the bacteria can awaken. However, Answer Choice B states that the ocean needs to reach the human Temperature to awaken the bacteria. This isn't true. The ocean doesn't need to reach 98°F, only to 85°F, which is Less (fewer? idk, my brain's too fried from LSAT) then the ocean doesn't need to reach the human body temp, only up to the activation temperature of the bacteria.
hope that helps.
E: The human body is an environment in which dormant V Cholerae bacteria can awaken.
I got to these two answers, after my initial crossing out the wrong ones.
Human body temp is about 98°F; Let's say V Cholerae needs to reach 85°F.
If such, than we can see that E is true, because anything 85°F and over, the bacteria can awaken. However, Answer Choice B states that the ocean needs to reach the human Temperature to awaken the bacteria. This isn't true. The ocean doesn't need to reach 98°F, only to 85°F, which is Less (fewer? idk, my brain's too fried from LSAT) then the ocean doesn't need to reach the human body temp, only up to the activation temperature of the bacteria.
hope that helps.
-
- PolinaP535
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 3
- Joined: July 04th, 2020
Re: Q17
Answer choice B also insists that the water must reach the human body's temperature in order to awaken. A statement that restrictive is not inferable from the passage. Although D, where the bacteria can awaken in such a condition is much more plausible based on the information given.
-
- Laura Damone
-
Thanks Received: 94
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 468
- Joined: February 17th, 2011
Re: Q17
Hey there! Noticed nobody had responded so I'll chime in!
Q17 refers to traditional culture methods, which points us to paragraph 3. It does so in a muddled, confusing way, and we'll untangle that in a minute. If you remember what makes a VC bacteria undetectable to traditional culture methods, great: you're ready to tackle the stem and take your first pass through the answers. If you don't remember what makes a VC bacteria undetectable to traditional culture methods, you'll want to go do some research in the passage first.
The first sentence of paragraph 3 is really science-y. That feels like a sand trap I don't want to get stuck in. I'll only dig into that part if I need to confirm or eliminate an answer that addresses those specs. The next parts of the paragraph I can digest more easily: "viable but nonculturable" means it's not reproducing, it's dormant, and we don't know what "awakens" it and makes it harmful to people again. One possibility, mentioned in the last two lines of the paragraph, is that changes in seawater temp or salinity might be the alarm clock.
OK, now back to that confusing question stem. "That passage suggests that IF...." is a really weird beginning. "Suggests" indicates that we're inferring, not identifying info stated explicitly. And that "IF" indicates that we're proposing a hypothetical. In this hypothetical situation, "viable but nonculturable" V. cholerae INEVITABLY cause cholera to people who ingest it. So if that was true, what else is probably true? This is what the question is asking.
Prephrasing now: we know that "viable but nonculturable" means dormant and not reproducing, and not in a state that's already harmful to people. So if ingesting "viable but nonculturable" still gets you sick, it's gotta wake up somewhere inside you. Gross.
A) Unsupported, but tempting, especially in the pandemic era. By now we all know that antibodies prevent you from getting sick from a pathogen, so it stands to reason that if people are getting sick, the antibodies aren't doing their thing. The problem with that is twofold: 1) we can't bring in that kind of specific outside knowledge, and 2) those specific cell-membrane-latching-antibodies are something that help us detect cholera in the water, not the human body.
B) Unsupported, but also tempting. The last part of paragraph 3 tells us that temperature MIGHT be the alarm clock that awakens the bacteria. And we know that the bacteria is dormant if it can't be cultured. But these two things together don't support that the ocean MUST reach 98.6 degrees to awaken the bacteria. That's too extreme. This is a possible explanation of the correlated phenomena, but not the only explanation. Also, 98.6 degree ocean temps? That's not a thing (yet). Is that outside knowledge we're bringing in? Yep. But it's general knowledge, not super specific medical knowledge, so I think it's acceptable here.
C) Unsupported. We don't have any reason to believe that the people who ingested it did so through chlorinated water systems. Maybe they, like the folks in New Orleans, ate contaminated seafood, or got exposed catching waves or gargling ocean water.
D) Unsupported. Nothing in the passage talks about prior infection. Pandemic era readers might tie this into our outside knowledge about prior infections and antibodies, but that's not something we're allowed to bring to the table.
E) Well supported. If the bacteria we ingest is "viable but nonculturable," and yet it makes us sick, it sounds like it's waking up inside us.
In the spirit of Halloween (because I'm writing this on Oct 20!), THE CALL WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
Hope this helps!
Q17 refers to traditional culture methods, which points us to paragraph 3. It does so in a muddled, confusing way, and we'll untangle that in a minute. If you remember what makes a VC bacteria undetectable to traditional culture methods, great: you're ready to tackle the stem and take your first pass through the answers. If you don't remember what makes a VC bacteria undetectable to traditional culture methods, you'll want to go do some research in the passage first.
The first sentence of paragraph 3 is really science-y. That feels like a sand trap I don't want to get stuck in. I'll only dig into that part if I need to confirm or eliminate an answer that addresses those specs. The next parts of the paragraph I can digest more easily: "viable but nonculturable" means it's not reproducing, it's dormant, and we don't know what "awakens" it and makes it harmful to people again. One possibility, mentioned in the last two lines of the paragraph, is that changes in seawater temp or salinity might be the alarm clock.
OK, now back to that confusing question stem. "That passage suggests that IF...." is a really weird beginning. "Suggests" indicates that we're inferring, not identifying info stated explicitly. And that "IF" indicates that we're proposing a hypothetical. In this hypothetical situation, "viable but nonculturable" V. cholerae INEVITABLY cause cholera to people who ingest it. So if that was true, what else is probably true? This is what the question is asking.
Prephrasing now: we know that "viable but nonculturable" means dormant and not reproducing, and not in a state that's already harmful to people. So if ingesting "viable but nonculturable" still gets you sick, it's gotta wake up somewhere inside you. Gross.
A) Unsupported, but tempting, especially in the pandemic era. By now we all know that antibodies prevent you from getting sick from a pathogen, so it stands to reason that if people are getting sick, the antibodies aren't doing their thing. The problem with that is twofold: 1) we can't bring in that kind of specific outside knowledge, and 2) those specific cell-membrane-latching-antibodies are something that help us detect cholera in the water, not the human body.
B) Unsupported, but also tempting. The last part of paragraph 3 tells us that temperature MIGHT be the alarm clock that awakens the bacteria. And we know that the bacteria is dormant if it can't be cultured. But these two things together don't support that the ocean MUST reach 98.6 degrees to awaken the bacteria. That's too extreme. This is a possible explanation of the correlated phenomena, but not the only explanation. Also, 98.6 degree ocean temps? That's not a thing (yet). Is that outside knowledge we're bringing in? Yep. But it's general knowledge, not super specific medical knowledge, so I think it's acceptable here.
C) Unsupported. We don't have any reason to believe that the people who ingested it did so through chlorinated water systems. Maybe they, like the folks in New Orleans, ate contaminated seafood, or got exposed catching waves or gargling ocean water.
D) Unsupported. Nothing in the passage talks about prior infection. Pandemic era readers might tie this into our outside knowledge about prior infections and antibodies, but that's not something we're allowed to bring to the table.
E) Well supported. If the bacteria we ingest is "viable but nonculturable," and yet it makes us sick, it sounds like it's waking up inside us.
In the spirit of Halloween (because I'm writing this on Oct 20!), THE CALL WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
Hope this helps!
Laura Damone
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep
5 posts Page 1 of 1