ajit257 wrote:
. 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.
(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics.
(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.
(D) People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria.
(E) Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat.
Can someone explain this question and how to tackle such a question...thanks.
Read the question stem first. It is a strengthen question. Read the stimulus with focus on scientists' hypothesis.
It is the following: most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
The stimulus also tells us that routine use of antibiotics create resistant bacteria.
Option (A) -
Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.If livestock get antibiotics, then the livestock that was bacterially infected in the first place, perhaps harbor resistant bacteria. If people ate that infected meat, it is quite possible that they will harbor resistant bacteria too. This would strengthen the hypothesis that resistant bacteria in people derive from consumption of infected meat.
(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics.If people were prescribed antibiotics, they would develop resistant bacteria in their own bodies. So it doesn't strengthen the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria are transferred from consumption of meat.
(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.Comparison of rural and urban areas is irrelevant.
(D) People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria. It strengthens the other view "the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics." given in the stimulus, not the hypothesis of the scientists.
(E) Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat.The claim of producers holds no value. Even if it did, it would weaken the hypothesis of the scientists.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
Veritas Prep Reviews
close
82% (02:11) correct
