Students possess informal, intuitive ways of reasoning about the world, including biological phenomena. Although useful in some cases, intuitive reasoning can also lead to the development of scientifically inaccurate ideas that conflict with central concepts taught in formal biology education settings, including evolution. Using antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution, we developed a set of reading interventions and an assessment tool to examine the extent to which differences in instructional language affect undergraduate student misconceptions and intuitive reasoning. We find that readings that confront intuitive misconceptions can be more effective in reducing those misconceptions than factual explanations of antibiotic resistance that fail to confront misconceptions. Overall, our findings build upon investigations of intuitive reasoning in biology, examine possible instructional interventions, and raise questions about effective implementation of reading interventions in addressing persistent misconceptions about biology.