NS FL9: Life Sciences #44

Post Reply
avo
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:01 pm

NS FL9: Life Sciences #44

Post by avo » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:51 pm

For this question, I thought the answer choices were supposed to be opposite of what was proposed in the passage, but the correct answer is a point that's already mentioned. Am I reading this question wrong?
NS_Tutor_Mathias
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: NS FL9: Life Sciences #44

Post by NS_Tutor_Mathias » Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:50 pm

You're reading the question right, but you're being a little rigid in your thinking: Whether the passage MENTIONS a phenomenon is unrelated to the claims of the passage. The mention of NHEJ is a piece of background information - not a conclusion of any study.

The study itself just looked whether large numbers of DSBs related to CpG site mutations, and they found that this was the case. But their procedure included no method for determining whether NHEJ or HR was doing these repairs that induced mutation. Therefore the extremely simple claim that NHEJ can also repair DSBs significantly weakens the conclusion that the question stem presents.

This is a very good scenario for practicing formal reasoning, by spelling out in your head what exactly we reasoned from (DSBs correlate with mutations at or near CpG sites), and what conclusions we can draw (the process of repairing DSBs >may< be causing these mutations) and what conclusions we certainly cannot (for example that it must be HR that is causing the observed effect).
Post Reply