p2bhokie wrote:
Can an expert please jump in and rescue us please? I am not sure whether the distinctions made above stand or not.
Hello.
This is a conclusion question, so it's important to understand the "
purpose" of the author. Why does he explain/mention/talk about something? What he wants to suggest? What he implies? That helps to solve "conclusion" question.
Let analyze the question.Public health expert: Until recently people believed that applications of biochemical research would eventually achieve complete victory over the microorganisms that cause human disease. However, current medical research shows that those microorganisms reproduce so rapidly that medicines developed for killing one variety will only spur the evolution of other varieties that are immune to those medicines.
The most rational public health strategy, therefore, would place much more emphasis than at present on fully informing people about the transmission of diseases caused by microorganisms, with a view to minimizing the incidence of such diseases.The
blue part is the suggestion. That's the KEY. Let ask yourself why the expert suggests something? --> He wants to improve anything?
Analyze each answer choice.Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn by the public health expert?
(A) A medicine that kills one variety of disease causing microorganism can cause the evolution of a drug-resistant variety.
Wrong. It just repeats the fact and is NOT a conclusion of the public health expert.
(B) A patient who contracts a disease caused by microorganisms cannot be effectively cured by present methods.
Wrong. Out of scope. We can’t conclude that. The public health expert just says that the strategy would place more emphasis than at present on informing people about the transmission of diseases. That’s it. No comparison of how effective between a present method and that of other time period.
(C) There is good reason to make a particular change to public health policy.
Correct. This is exactly what the expert wants to say. Let ask yourself why the public health expert suggested a new strategy? The reason is, off course, the current public health policy is NOT good enough to prevent the diseases.
(D) No one who is fully informed about the diseases caused by microorganisms will ever fall victim to those diseases.
Wrong. Can’t infer that. A fully informed about the disease may be a victim to the diseases. “Informed” does not mean “100% prevented”.
(E) Some previous approaches to public health policy ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at a rapid rate.
Wrong. We don’t know whether some previous approached ignored the fact that disease-causing microorganisms reproduce at rapid rate or not. We have no clue about that.
Hope it helps.