RC Question 18 Explanation
DISCUSSION: This is another question that’s hard to prephrase for, so just know what information is found in which paragraph, and what the scientists’ opinions/research showed.
___________
- CORRECT. This is stated in the fourth paragraph where it said they “grew” and “developed” new peptides that previously didn’t exist in nature.
- This wasn’t ever stated nor implied.
- Paragraph 2 says that peptides were tested in relation to both silicon and gallium arsenide.
- We don’t know this.
- We don’t know this either.
I somehow got this right, but I was really in-between A and C. C really tripped me up because the text says they “grew a random assortment of one billion different peptides and tested whether any of them bound to silicon, gallium arsenide, OR indium phosphide crystals.” With a random assortment of a billion peptides + the fact that the text says OR, it is likely that some of them were tested in relation to some of the semiconductor materials and not others. How come this is wrong?
Also, “did not previously exist in nature” seems to be huge in scope. I have no idea how peptides work, but “grew a random assortment of one billion peptides” and “they developed additional related peptides” does not show me that these things exist no where else in nature. I could grow a million different seeds and genetically modify them, but that doesn’t mean that that hasn’t happened elsewhere in nature. Why are the new LSATs so hard lol
“Any….or” means all. So it can’t be one and not the others. They tested each peptide individually for whether it bound to the three molecules.
Don’t know enough about peptides to comment but if lsat says something directly as fact then you have to take it as fact. There’s no space to explain in detail why that fact is true.
(That’s different from when the lsat suggests a fact but doesn’t state it. Don’t need to assume that is true unless literally everyone would agree it is)