librrra wrote:
I feel like there should be an additional information in A: how do we know if the bacteria in meat actually transmits to humans? Are we assuming it as a common knowledge? Thank you
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.
Basically, as per the reasoning from the argument, the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments.
Now, as per option A, Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed, this implies that resistant bacteria will be surviving in the livestock. In other words, if livestock get antibiotics, perhaps will harbor resistant bacteria. Now, if this livestock is consumed by the humans in the form of meat, the resistant bacteria will be automatically transmitted in humans. This is general common sense, there is no assumption of any common knowledge.
For example, if you are eating any infected food, automatically you are getting infected indirectly through that infected food.