Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the hypothesis of the scientists?
A. Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals. At first glance, it seems like this doesn’t have anything to do with the question. But what this choice implies is that the antibiotics are used in livestock a lot.This makes the livestock develop resistant bacteria, and hence when humans ingest the meat, the bacteria is transferred to them. Let’s keep this one for now, and see if there’s a better one.
B. Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics. Counter-productive and completely irrelevant. We are interested in finding out how the bacteria got there, not what they did to people WITH the bacteria already.
C. The incidence of resistant bacteria in people has tended to be much higher in urban areas than in rural areas where meat is of comparable quality. If meat is of comparable quality, then this seems to indicate an alternate cause that weakens the hypothesis. Opposite answer trap.
D. People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria. This is complicated wording. This is saying: if you’ve not taken antibiotics, you don’t develop resistant bacteria. This is proving the conclusion that we are trying to refute. Incorrect.
E. Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat.Once again, this weakens the hypothesis. Opposite Answer trap.
According to answer choices explanation i am unable to derive that the livestock develop resistant bacteria, and hence when humans ingest the meat, the bacteria is transferred to them.
I also want to discuss the structure of the argument.
After reading the argument first i find that scientists hypothesis is most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
which was wrong
OA is A but i am not agree with explanation Edit: Formatted
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.