I dont know about this question: TPRH verbal passage 25, Q 2

[Gandyy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Its the passages about the sharks.

According to the passage, a sizable decrease in the shark populations:

I. might cause some fish populations to go unchecked

II. would hamper cancer research.

III. might take decades to recover from.

A. I only
B. II and III only
C. I and III only
D. I, II, and III

Alright so I understood the question, and passage fairly well, but there is a discrepancy here. In the passage it says that it takes 15 years for a shark population to recover. So I started thinking that's definitely not "decades" like choice III as that would have to be at least 20 years (2 decades), and I knew it wasnt "would hamper cancer research". I did know that it was "might cause some fish populations to go unchecked" but I had a hard time deciding between choices A and C for reasons above. Turns out it was C and not the answer choice I picked which was A ( just roman numeral I).

I'm not sure what to do in that situation. I feel like that is a debatable answer. When someone tells me decades, I am going to think at least 20 years and will not count 1 decade as 15 years.

Am I over thinking this and killing myself and how should I align my thought process for the real mcat?

 

[Gandyy]

b

 

[kraskadva]

I don't have the TPRH books, so I don't know what's in the passage, but based on what you've written here, A totally makes sense.
Sharks eat fish. So less sharks eat less fish (i.e. fish populations go unchecked). And yes, 15 years does not equal decades.

 

[Gandyy]

I don't have the TPRH books, so I don't know what's in the passage, but based on what you've written here, A totally makes sense.
Sharks eat fish. So less sharks eat less fish (i.e. fish populations go unchecked). And yes, 15 years does not equal decades.

Yea Idk... anyone with the verbal book that can help me out here?

 

[techfan]

I recently did that passage. The key word is "might" for a lot of the TPRH verbal passages. They are trying to get you to choose the most broad answer (there was even something about sharks not getting cancer in the passage and how it could help with research, but the answer choice said would), that's kind of the way they teach verbal. They want you to move away from the definite answers you give in the sciences and be able to accept the broader ones. As for the decades thing, you don't say "I have one and half chapter to read" you say "I have one and a half chapterS to read" so 15 years is 1.5 decades not 1.5 decade.

 

[Gandyy]

I recently did that passage. The key word is "might" for a lot of the TPRH verbal passages. They are trying to get you to choose the most broad answer (there was even something about sharks not getting cancer in the passage and how it could help with research, but the answer choice said would), that's kind of the way they teach verbal. They want you to move away from the definite answers you give in the sciences and be able to accept the broader ones. As for the decades thing, you don't say "I have one and half chapter to read" you say "I have one and a half chapterS to read" so 15 years is 1.5 decades not 1.5 decade.

ah thanks that helps

 

[texan2414]

I recently did that passage. The key word is "might" for a lot of the TPRH verbal passages. They are trying to get you to choose the most broad answer (there was even something about sharks not getting cancer in the passage and how it could help with research, but the answer choice said would), that's kind of the way they teach verbal. They want you to move away from the definite answers you give in the sciences and be able to accept the broader ones. As for the decades thing, you don't say "I have one and half chapter to read" you say "I have one and a half chapterS to read" so 15 years is 1.5 decades not 1.5 decade.

+1

This is a ridiculous argument but it satisfies the answer choice lol.

 

[techfan]

Hahaha, I guess. I read a post a while back that said something to the effect of for verbal there will usually be 1 opposite, 1 distractor, and 2 that could be correct, one extreme and the other not it's almost never the extreme one.

 

[texan2414]

Hahaha, I guess. I read a post a while back that said something to the effect of for verbal there will usually be 1 opposite, 1 distractor, and 2 that could be correct, one extreme and the other not it's almost never the extreme one.

These are certainly one of the many patterns I have seen in my practice.

There are also instances when subtle word nuances (ie. will not VS cannot) can make a seemingly-right answer choice wrong. And the way AAMC does this is by copy-pasting a line directly from the passage to entice you to pick it but you have to realize that if they change one word, they change the meaning of the assertion, and thus that would be the wrong answer.

It's really difficult to do this with complex passages where the argument is obscure or the language used is too "fluffy" (think back to the AAMC 3 passage talking about Confucius and the concept of li).