Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacter

Looks A to me .

Conclusion:Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.

A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals. - satisfies this conclusion as well as premise

I m not happy with A
I`d like to Choose C

It looks like A.
Constant exposure to antibiotics causes Resistance in bacteria. If antibiotics are injected into all meat for consumption, then, if any meat is infected with bacteria, those bacteria will develop resistance to the antibiotics. On consumption of such infected meat, those resistant bacteria will be transmitted to humans. That makes sense.

According to B, antibiotic use by humans is still responsible for antibiotic resistance in humans. This weakens the scientists' hypothesis.

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

Scientists hypothesis: most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.

We need to STRENGTHEN!

(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals
Antibiotics lead to resistant bacteria in meat so when these are consumed by humans they get it

C - out of scope, urban and rural meats are not compared.
E - Weakens the argument
B - talks about treatment but doesnt support the hypothesis
D - This is the opposite. It argues that antibiotics are the cause and not the meat.

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.

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. -Correct. Bacteria become resistant before even entering human body.
(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics. -Out of scope
(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. -This weakens the argument by saying that the cause is not bacteria, but the cause is related to environment in which people live.
(D) People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria. -Out of scope
(E) Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat. -Out of scope

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?

For reference, I narrowed down to A&B, chose "A" at the last second. Very tricky. See my reasoning below

CONCLUSION: most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat (as opposed to via prescription antibiotics)

(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.
- Meat that consumers are eating are "infected" with antibiotics. The idea is producers are speeding up maturity process to slaughter animals for food. Theoretically to increase the amount of meat that consumers can eat
(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics.
- I didn't like this b/c of "food poisoning". We don't know consumers got food poisoning at all. Also, note the difference between "ANTIBIOTICS" & "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.
- Quality of meat = irrelevant
(D) People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria.
- least = extreme language. out.
(E) Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat.
- opposite of what we want to go for.

Kudos please if you find helpful

give rise to something = to cause something to happen or exist

If livestock are routinely fed antibiotics, as choice A states, meat from livestock is likely to contain the resistant bacteria, since any routine of antibiotics can result in resistance bacteria. Thus, choice A is the best answer.

How cases of food poisoning are treated (choice B) fails to indicate whether the infection bacteria are resistant bacteria.

Choice C suggests that meat consumption is not the primary culprit for the high incidence of resistant bacteria.

Choice D tends to support the competing hypothesis that prescription antibiotics are responsible.

Choice E asserts that livestock farmers claim that the hypothesis is false, but it provides no basis for evaluating the truth of this claim.

I feel like there should be a piece of additional information in A: how do we know if the bacteria in meat actually transmit to humans? Are we assuming it as common knowledge?

The question requires us to provide a statement that strengthens the claim put forward by the scientists. C does not strengthen that claim. It in fact provides a situation in which the situations in the both the cases of the rural and urban areas are put on the same platform. Answer choice A is clear winner as it strengthens the claim put forward by the scientists. According to A, livestock are given antibiotics in their feed and the meat of such livestock when ingested by the people delivers the resistant bacteria to those people. This increases the chances of meat consuming people of harbouring such resistant bacteria.

Posted from my mobile device

Can someone please explain me option C.
this is what I understood after reading option C: meat quality in the rural area is better than the urban area. Therefore urban people who ate infected meat have higher resistant bacteria than rural people. Isn't this supporting the conclusion?

C states that the incidence of resistant bacteria tends to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Also, the quality of meat in both urban and rural areas is comparable/almost same. This simply adds some more information to the given scenario and does nothing to strengthen or weaken the author's argument.

Answer choice (C) is a trap answer that may seem to say something that affects the argument, but says nothing that affects the argument.

(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.

The statement "meat is of comparable quality" means that the quality of the meat in the two types of areas is similar.

So, what (C) is saying is that in areas of two types where meat quality is similar, the incidence of resistant bacteria is higher in areas of one of the types than in areas of the other type.

By making this comparison between the incidences of resistance bacteria in the areas of two types, (C) creates the illusion that it is saying something that can be used to strengthen the argument, and gives a test-taker an opportunity to concoct a convoluted story explaining why (C) adds support to the conclusion.

However, (C) does not add support to the conclusion, as it says nothing that indicates that consumption of meat is the reason for the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

In fact, if anything, (C) provides a reason to question the explanation, because, even though people in the areas of the two different types consume similar meat, the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is higher in areas of one type than it is in areas of the other type. So, since (C) indicates that, without a difference in meat, there is a difference in incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, what (C) says tends to indicate that something other than meat consumption is responsible for the presence of the antibiotic resistant bacteria.

OFFICIAL GMAT EXPLANATION

If livestock are routinely fed antibiotics, as choice A states, meat from livestock is likely to contain the resistant bacteria, since any routine of antibiotics can result in resistance bacteria. Thus, choice A is the best answer.

How cases of food poisoning are treated (choice B) fails to indicate whether the infection bacteria are resistant bacteria. Choice C suggests that meat consumption is not the primary culprit for the high incidence of resistant bacteria. Choice D tends to support the competing hypothesis that prescription antibiotics are responsible. Choice E asserts that livestock farmers claim that the hypothesis is false, but it provides no basis for evaluating the truth of this claim.

Hello Experts,

I have some questions with respect to the correct option and the second one that I choose, which was incorrect:

(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.

This states that the antibiotics are included in livestock, to increase the rate of growth...


(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics.

This mentions that the food poisonings happen because of the meat which was already infected by bacteria, and to treat that infection, people were given anti-biotics.
So, as per my understanding it is already claiming what the scientists mentioned.

"Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat."

Please through some light

Hello Ankur,

Let me help you here!

First of all be very sure of what we are trying to strengthen. Here the conclusion we try to strengthen is that the meat humans consume is the reason for the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in people and not the direct human consumption of prescription antibiotics. With this clarity of perception, you can easily shoot this question down.

Now let us address your questions.

Option A tells us that the meat consumed by humans do contain antibiotics, which, according to the first statement of our passage, can help bacteria get resistant. So if people consume this meat , they can host antibiotic resistant bacteria even without consuming prescription drugs directly. Thus it directly caters to the conclusion. The purpose of having antibiotics in meat is explained in the option statement, but that does not make too much of a difference for us as long as it makes a reason to have antibiotics in the meat.

Option B refers to people directly consuming prescription antibiotics and that goes directly against the conclusion we need to strengthen.

Evaluating the options from this perspective will definitely make your analysis much easier!