UCAT: Decision Making

[ucat3300+]

I've been getting some varied information about these tricky UCAT definitions. Does "some" mean 1-99 inclusive, or does it exclude 1? Would really like to clear this up as I often become torn between Y/N because of this detail!

Hey mate, this really tripped me and a lot of other people when we were doing the UCAT last year. A famous commercial prep company always said Some is greater than or equal to one in their answers. But the official definitions on the official UCAT website say Some is "An undetermined number being more than one but less than all. A part of it, not all of it." so it excludes 1 as you say.

I decided to stick to the official definition, and the official definition is what I used on test day. I remember going through the official practice question banks and mocks to see if I could find a question that could clarify this but to my memory I failed in finding a question like that which is sad. We just gotta trust UCAT will use the official definition in their questions, (content removed).

 

[JeydinNewWon]

Hey mate, this really tripped me and a lot of other people when we were doing the UCAT last year. A famous commercial prep company always said Some is greater than or equal to one in their answers. But the official definitions on the official UCAT website say Some is "An undetermined number being more than one but less than all. A part of it, not all of it." so it excludes 1 as you say.

I decided to stick to the official definition, and the official definition is what I used on test day. I remember going through the official practice question banks and mocks to see if I could find a question that could clarify this but to my memory I failed in finding a question like that which is sad. We just gotta trust UCAT will use the official definition in their questions, (content removed).

Was wondering, what did you get for DM? Also, I am very curious, are you planning to re-apply to NSW uni when doing UWA provisional?

Also whilst UCAT does say this, I am confused as their answers for the official banks contradict their definition of 'Some'...

 

[cs123]

Hey mate, this really tripped me and a lot of other people when we were doing the UCAT last year. A famous commercial prep company always said Some is greater than or equal to one in their answers. But the official definitions on the official UCAT website say Some is "An undetermined number being more than one but less than all. A part of it, not all of it." so it excludes 1 as you say.

I decided to stick to the official definition, and the official definition is what I used on test day. I remember going through the official practice question banks and mocks to see if I could find a question that could clarify this but to my memory I failed in finding a question like that which is sad. We just gotta trust UCAT will use the official definition in their questions, (content removed).

Thanks, I think I'll go by the official definition to be safe. I also want to confirm whether "at least some" includes 'all'..
One of the question stems i was doing for DM said:
At least some of the customers liked thriller movies.
Then the question asked if "some of the customers liked thrillers". And the answer was YES. But I interpreted 'at least some' to be some, most, or even all, so wouldn't the answer to the q be NO?

 

[ucat3300+]

Was wondering, what did you get for DM? Also, I am very curious, are you planning to re-apply to NSW uni when doing UWA provisional?

Also whilst UCAT does say this, I am confused as their answers for the official banks contradict their definition of 'Some'...

I got 810 for DM. If the official questions contradict their definition of 'some' on their webpage, then I don't know what to say... UCAT is such a crucial part of medicine entry so they need to be really rigorous when they're setting questions... Maybe post the official question that contradicts their definition of some so we can have a look at it together?

I know I'm definitely not trying the non-standard route, you couldn't pay me to do UCAT again. At the moment I'm not too keen on the GAMSAT route - UWA provisional is weird in that it's essentially a 2 year biomed + 4 year MD course, but the first year of MD counts as the 3rd year of the Bachelor of Biomedical Science. So if I somehow do manage to get into USYD, I would be repeating first year of medicine at USYD and getting delayed by one year.. Also, going through the process of medicine entry once is stressful enough, not sure I want to do it again. But the prospect of doing internship & residency at my hometown is appealing, so I might try. I have a friend who's starting UWA provisional MD this year, and he's already planning on taking the GAMSAT so he can go back to his hometown in Melbourne. He chose Physics as his elective units to help him prepare for the GAMSAT. But I honestly don't think I can handle both MD1 and GAMSAT + interview prep in my third year, so I'll probably stick with UWA. It's a good uni after all.

Thanks, I think I'll go by the official definition to be safe. I also want to confirm whether "at least some" includes 'all'..
One of the question stems i was doing for DM said:
At least some of the customers liked thriller movies.
Then the question asked if "some of the customers liked thrillers". And the answer was YES. But I interpreted 'at least some' to be some, most, or even all, so wouldn't the answer to the q be NO?

Yeahh I see what you're saying, and I agree I think the answer should be No too. I think 'At least some' opens up two possibilities - more than one, but not all customers like thriller movies OR all customers like thriller movies. Whereas 'some of the customers like thrillers' is a stronger statement - it's saying definitely not all customers like thriller movies, which may not be the case and we don't have enough information.

In times like this I question the authenticity of the question source - if this is from an official question bank I accept whatever explanation they have, but if it's from a commercial preparation company I tend to be more skeptical. If your commercial preparation company has a thing where you can send them questions, definitely send this through so the question makers can have a look at it. Otherwise, we can't do much but think it's a bit of a dodgy question and move on.

 

[mmorris]

Hey for basic syllogisms, is anyone able to do their venn diagrams to answer the Y/N's without physically writing out the venn diagrams and just visualising it in your head?

I feel like that would save some time

 

[cs123]

Was wondering, what did you get for DM? Also, I am very curious, are you planning to re-apply to NSW uni when doing UWA provisional?

Also whilst UCAT does say this, I am confused as their answers for the official banks contradict their definition of 'Some'...

Yes exactly! Some questions from the official DM q bank do not differentiate the meaning of 'some' and 'all', indicating that 'some' includes 'all'. But according to their "official definition" some precludes all. I'm at a loss as to how I should consider the word 'some' now - perhaps I should contact UCAT and clarify this?

 

[cherry19]

Hey guys, in the ucat does "not all" include 0? I know the ucat official definitions say it is 1-99% but I wanted to double check since their definition of "some" is incorrect I'm pre sure. Plus I've seen some sources where "not all" does include 0

Also does "most" include 100%?

 

[cs123]

This question if from the official DM question bank- the first and fifth statements are meant to be Yes, but I don't think they can be inferred from the stimulus. What do people think of this?

 

[r1ckworthy]

View attachment 5191

This question if from the official DM question bank- the first and fifth statements are meant to be Yes, but I don't think they can be inferred from the stimulus. What do people think of this?

Putting out my own thoughts, I think both statements are YES.
Statement 1 - Looking at the graph, you can see that the condition does closely trail behind the spike of influenza. If the statement said "the condition is caused by a bout of influenza", then it would be NO.
Statement 5 - I'm a bit confused by this statement as well. However, looking at the graph, there is a clear difference in the number of cases of influenza and the unknown condition between certain months. If the statement said, "influenza and the condition is caused by temperature and sunshine patterns", then I would put NO.
I don't know if that is much help tbh, but that is my reasoning!

 

[cs123]

Putting out my own thoughts, I think both statements are YES.
Statement 1 - Looking at the graph, you can see that the condition does closely trail behind the spike of influenza. If the statement said "the condition is caused by a bout of influenza", then it would be NO.
Statement 5 - I'm a bit confused by this statement as well. However, looking at the graph, there is a clear difference in the number of cases of influenza and the unknown condition between certain months. If the statement said, "influenza and the condition is caused by temperature and sunshine patterns", then I would put NO.
I don't know if that is much help tbh, but that is my reasoning!

Thanks so much, your reasoning makes sense to me!

I interpreted Statement 1 in the context of an individual, who suffers from the condition after they suffer from a bout of influenza (in this case, the answer would have to be No as we don't know if it was the same people who contracted Influenza and then the condition). But I see now that the statement was referring to the trends over time. I hope I'm making sense! Since there are at least two ways you could interpret the statement, surely it's a bit dodgy...

As for the fifth statement, I agree that the relationship is not a causal one. I feel it's quite a stretch to infer that there are distinct temperature and sunshine fluctuations between months though! For example, this could be a country with no seasonal variation, hence the spike in the two illnesses has no relationship (let alone a strong one) with sunshine and temp. So I'm still thinking No is the answer.

 

[r1ckworthy]

Thanks so much, your reasoning makes sense to me!

I interpreted Statement 1 in the context of an individual, who suffers from the condition after they suffer from a bout of influenza (in this case, the answer would have to be No as we don't know if it was the same people who contracted Influenza and then the condition). But I see now that the statement was referring to the trends over time. I hope I'm making sense! Since there are at least two ways you could interpret the statement, surely it's a bit dodgy...

As for the fifth statement, I agree that the relationship is not a causal one. I feel it's quite a stretch to infer that there are distinct temperature and sunshine fluctuations between months though! For example, this could be a country with no seasonal variation, hence the spike in the two illnesses has no relationship (let alone a strong one) with sunshine and temp. So I'm still thinking No is the answer.

I honestly agree with the stuff you've written there, especially for the fifth statement. I thought through those things as well, but since the answer is "Yes" for both statements, I thought I was overcomplicating things quite a bit. I think the UCAT question writers are not necessarily trying to trick us, but instead are trying to get us to think deeper about the statement and its relevance to the stimulus. It does say "country in the Northern Hemisphere" in the stimulus, but yeah, it is a bit confusing! Then again, it could be due to behaviours in certain temperature and sunshine conditions, where people stay longer indoors during winter due to temperature and decreased daylight (hence infectious diseases spreading more readily), but I am DEFINITELY overcomplicating things. I think the question writer just wanted us to examine the graph and see that the condition and influenza fluctuate around certain months, which could be due to sunshine and temperature patterns.

Honestly though, I think statement 5 should be a 'No' based on what you said, but I guess it is what it is

 

[sunnyrain]

.

 

[medpharmed]

Hi,
If one of those yes/no questions says that, for example, everyone who likes chocolate also likes vanilla at some event and then one of the statements says something like "some of the people at this event who like chocolate also like vanilla", would the answer be no because it's not "some" but rather all the people at the event, or would it be yes because "some" is covered by "all". idk if im making sense but any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[medpharmed]

Hello, I was working on syllogism 13 from the official UCAT mock and it uses 'several'. I was wondering if we just take several to mean more than 2 but not many (google definition)? Thank youuu

 

[A1]

If one of those yes/no questions says that, for example, everyone who likes chocolate also likes vanilla at some event and then one of the statements says something like "some of the people at this event who like chocolate also like vanilla", would the answer be no because it's not "some" but rather all the people at the event, or would it be yes because "some" is covered by "all".

In formal syllogism - given "All are X" then "Some are X" is True, coz any Some subset out of All will satisfy.

Pearson however treats these statements in language sense more than mathematical sense. And they clearly define Some is less than All, so the answer to above^ is False.

In case you haven't seen Pearson's definitions > Test Format | UCAT ANZ Consortium

Hello, I was working on syllogism 13 from the official UCAT mock and it uses 'several'. I was wondering if we just take several to mean more than 2 but not many (google definition)? Thank youuu

Pearson doesn't give a definition for Several. I would treat it the same as Some ("An undetermined number being more than one but less than all.")

 

[medpharmed]

In formal syllogism - given "All are X" then "Some are X" is True, coz any Some subset out of All will satisfy.

Pearson however treats these statements in language sense more than mathematical sense. And they clearly define Some is less than All, so the answer to above^ is False.

In case you haven't seen Pearson's definitions > Test Format | UCAT ANZ Consortium


Pearson doesn't give a definition for Several. I would treat it the same as Some ("An undetermined number being more than one but less than all.")

Thank you so much

 

[medpharmed]

Hi, I just wanted to double check what it means for someone to sit, for example, 3 seats away from someone else? Does that mean there are 2 people in between them or 3? Thanks!

 

[Doradoraaa]

Hi, I took UCAT this year, and am part of GWS and EAS in NSW - I think my projected ATAR is on track for about a 99.4/99.45
VR : 720
DM: 870
QR: 880
AR : 880

SJT : 619
What unis do I have a shot at getting an offer for? (I want to explore interstate options as well).

Your DM score is amazing! Do you have any tips on evaluating arguments in DM?

 

[medpharmed]

Hello, could someone please help explain how to do this question (explain how to get D)? Thank you. (This is from the official website)

 

[Arcadia]

Hello guys is DM marked out of 38 or 39?

Or does it depend on the subtest your given?