UCAT: Decision Making

[kcx]

The question stem says microorganisms include bacteria and viruses, so it can be concluded that both of them are types of microorganisms.

oops ahaha didn't read the question properly, thanks for the help x

 

[sevun]

Hmm, so in this case, there is a possibility that some personal trainers are gym members + nutritionists but there is a possibility that none of the personal trainers are gym members + nutritionists. I thought we would always assume the worst case possible, which is the latter. What would your advice be?

Could I get a response on this, please? Thanks for everyone's help so far

 

[hazell]

Could I get a response on this, please? Thanks for everyone's help so far

There is a possibility that some personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists but I wouldn't necessarily agree with the second part of your statement- there isn't the possibility that none of the personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists because in UCAT 'not all' is equal to 'some'- it doesn't include zero because it's implying 'some', so there are some personal trainers who are gym members and nutritionists

 

[nb]

There is a possibility that some personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists but I wouldn't necessarily agree with the second part of your statement- there isn't the possibility that none of the personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists because in UCAT 'not all' is equal to 'some'- it doesn't include zero because it's implying 'some', so there are some personal trainers who are gym members and nutritionists

Yep. Make sure you understand that Not all CANNOT include 0. This has been confirmed by the official UCAT consortium. (Content removed) I agree with your answer. It should be YES.

 

[sevun]

There is a possibility that some personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists but I wouldn't necessarily agree with the second part of your statement- there isn't the possibility that none of the personal trainers are gym members AND nutritionists because in UCAT 'not all' is equal to 'some'- it doesn't include zero because it's implying 'some', so there are some personal trainers who are gym members and nutritionists

Yep. Make sure you understand that Not all CANNOT include 0. This has been confirmed by the official UCAT consortium. (content removed )I agree with your answer. It should be YES.

y'all are fantastic, thanks

and just quickly, for the last yes/no question I got wrong, can we assume that driving independently means you have a full UK license because to drive a car in the first place, you need one? I don't know, I thought you couldn't:

for the following, would you also have to infer that good attendance is missing as few meetings as possible? Maybe I was being a bit too fussy with what is considered good and should have inferred/assumed that good = more attendance:

 

[hazell]

y'all are fantastic, thanks

and just quickly, for the last yes/no question I got wrong, can we assume that driving independently means you have a full UK license because to drive a car in the first place, you need one? I don't know, I thought you couldn't:
View attachment 3626
for the following, would you also have to infer that good attendance is missing as few meetings as possible? Maybe I was being a bit too fussy with what is considered good and should have inferred/assumed that good = more attendance:
View attachment 3627

for the first one, I would assume having a license=being able to drive independently because it says "to drive a car you need a full UK license" it doesn't state that you need someone say with you- as stated in the case of the provisional license
for the second one, I think its safe to assume that attending ALL meetings gives you a "good" attendance- you can't attend more than all (it's the maximum) so I would assume attending all gives you good attendance

 

[nb]

It says according to historians in the passage, but question says based on case studies.... HOW is it YES then?

 

[sevun]

hazell noodleboy123 Could I please confirm that the different definition of "not all" does not matter in this case for the third statement shown? Since we cannot verify this is true, the conclusion does not follow. Would the UCAT consortium agree with the reasoning + answers given too?

 

[hazell]

hazell noodleboy123 Could I please confirm that the different definition of "not all" does not matter in this case for the third statement shown? Since we cannot verify this is true, the conclusion does not follow. Would the UCAT consortium agree with the reasoning + answers given too?
View attachment 3630

hmm no I think your original answer is correct, "not all" doesn't really apply in this case. Like you said it isn't certain that there are artists who are good at pencil sketching and graffiti. The answer they gave is also reasonable in my opinion

 

[sevun]

hmm no I think your original answer is correct, "not all" doesn't really apply in this case. Like you said it isn't certain that there are artists who are good at pencil sketching and graffiti. The answer they gave is also reasonable in my opinion

Awesome, thanks! So I should expect UCAT to do the same since this is different to the "not all" case?

 

[hazell]

Awesome, thanks! So I should expect UCAT to do the same since this is different to the "not all" case?

I would assume so!

 

[cocodreams]

Could someone please explain the first two statements. Are they 'no' because the inverse can't be applied?

 

[cocodreams]

hmm no I think your original answer is correct, "not all" doesn't really apply in this case. Like you said it isn't certain that there are artists who are good at pencil sketching and graffiti. The answer they gave is also reasonable in my opinion

Just wanted to clarify, not all = some? And some: [1,all)

 

[hazell]

Just wanted to clarify, not all = some? And some: [1,all)

not all= some
some= >0 but not all (not 100%)

 

[sevun]

Does anyone else agree that lifting gas = lighter than air is a bit dodgy or not?

 

[dani01]

where does it say in the excerpt that she can study just a difficult subject? I can't assume that can I?

 

[A1]

Does anyone else agree that lifting gas = lighter than air is a bit dodgy?

The passage says "containing lighter-than-air gasses to provide lift. Therefore lighter than air = lifting.

where does it say in the excerpt that she can study just a difficult subject? I can't assume that can I?

I like to help but the screenshot is too fuzzy to read.

 

[N182]

where does it say in the excerpt that she can study just a difficult subject? I can't assume that can I?

You can assume that when she studies she studies atleast 1 subject (or else she isn't studying lol). If the subject is easy she must also study a difficult exam stated in the stem (3hrs total), and if the subject is difficult she studies 2hrs in total. So you aren't assuming she studies a difficult subject since that is one of the cases.

 

[jordann12]

The passage says "containing lighter-than-air gasses to provide lift. Therefore lighter than air = lifting.

I like to help but the screenshot is too fuzzy to read.

sorry about that hopefully you can read this better

 

[nb]

Take a look at this official DM question. cocodreams The last 2 statements (content removed) as you can see the official UCAT consortium marks it wrong. This is because they want you to make inferences and not just simply 'check the passage' for some key words and then write YES or NO. (content removed)