A new antibacterial strategy works by using a chemical

Hey guys
But doesn't the argument say that anti bacterial technique will not work if water is not present.
And C too mentions hard to reach water flow so in this case anti bacterial will not be of much help why would doctors buy it.
Please clarify

Posted from my mobile device

hi,
no the argument says:..this trategy only works where fluids are constantly present as in a water tube.
means a FLUID is required and not necessary water.(fluid can be anything which is similar to water in water tube).
and Conventional sterilization techniques have not been fully successful in killing bacteria in hard-to-reach water flowing areas

hence C
KUDOS if it helped

Posting solution:











This CR question utilizes GMATPill CR Framework #4 "Regular Negation"

Rather than going through each answer choice and negating each one (this takes up tons of time), you want to discreetly have something in mind and see if any of the answer choices fit that negation that you have in mind.
In this specific case, there are two options and there's a quick way to pre-think a possible negation in your head before looking at the answer choices.

Here are the two options:
1) Buy Antibacterial Chemical
2) Stick to Sterilization

We recognize the conclusion is that dentists will choose option 1 because of some benefit. Well, we can know for sure if there is some baseline and that the benefit that option 1 gives is an "incremental" benefit.

So if we can show that option 1 has a specific benefit and option 2 does not have that specific benefit (negation) then that means the specific benefit for option 1 which is "incremental" has been identified.

The negation strategy here fills our head with some pre-thinking. "Something that does not have this benefit, some base case before buying antibacterial chemical indicating the lack of such a benefit..." With that in mind, we come across the correct answer choice which indeed matches that pre-thinking.

By showing that:
Option 1 leads to some positive +
Option 2 leads to some negative - (without that incremental benefit)

Then we know option 2 is the "negation" that strengthens the argument that option 1 has incremental benefit and thus dentists will choose the option of buying the antibacterial chemical.

And here are the explanations for each answer choice.

Notice we went into the answer choices with Framework #4 Negation in mind. We used our prethinking of the two states:
Option 1 --> Positive
Option 2 --> Negative

And used that to help us quickly decide whether an answer choice matched our pre-thinking. Ultimately we found that (C) was the one that matched our pre-thinking.

reading long choices correctly thru all 5 choices consistently and repeatedly without reaching conclusions on the trot and going back to other choices. IF you miss a step , you might miss the answer C

reaching conclusions (making your choice) about whether argument strengthen s or weakens and being sure that the choice said conventional do no t hlp against deciding conventional strategies help without water flow

Answer is evident - C) Conventional sterilization techniques have not been fully successful in killing bacteria in hard-to-reach water flowing areas.

it stresses that conventional methods have not been successful, so in this hard to reach watery areas this new antiseptic definitely has an advantage, which makes it the right answer.

This is a "new" version of a question from OG. Though a little bit different. Haha!

Among Options B , C and E:
B says : dentists want to replace the old system with a new one. Ok, fine, but they could have used any other system. Why only this new one?
C: It gives details about the need for this new system. Keep this one.
D: Price is mentioned , but is the effectiveness better than the existing system? We don't know. If the new system is less effective, then why replace it?
C is the best