RichaChampion
Microbiologist: A lethal strain of salmonella recently showed up in a European country, causing an outbreak of illness that killed two people and infected twenty-seven others. Investigators blame the severity of the outbreak on the overuse of antibiotics, since the salmonella bacteria tested were shown to be drug-resistant. But this is unlikely because patients in the country where the outbreak occurred cannot obtain antibiotics to treat illness without a prescription, and the country’s doctors prescribe antibiotics less readily than do doctors in any other European country.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the microbiologist’s reasoning?
A.Physicians in the country where the outbreak occurred have become hesitant to prescribe antibiotics since they are frequently in short supply.
B.People in the country where the outbreak occurred often consume foods produced from animals that eat antibiotics-laden livestock feed.
C.Use of antibiotics in two countries that neighbor the country where the outbreak occurred has risen over the past decade.
D.Drug-resistant strains of salmonella have not been found in countries in which antibiotics are not generally available.
E.Salmonella has been shown to spread easily along the distribution chains of certain vegetables, such as raw tomatoes.
OA:
Source:
OG 2017 Verbal Edition
I request you help me dive deeper into the flow of the argument and should we consider attacking evidence or assumption. Its a tough question according to me.
My understanding →
Microbiologist: A lethal strain of salmonella recently showed up in a European country, causing an outbreak of illness that killed two people and infected twenty-seven others.
[Hard Core Fact]Investigators blame the severity of the outbreak on the overuse of antibiotics, since the salmonella bacteria tested were shown to be drug-resistant.
[Explanation]Honestly I do not fully understand the english here.
But this is unlikely because patients in the country where the outbreak occurred cannot obtain antibiotics to treat illness without a prescription, and the country’s doctors prescribe antibiotics less readily than do doctors in any other European country.
[Causal Assumption] →Only doctors prescription, which is rare to obtain, can help get antibiotic → Insufficient antibiotic to outbreak
I have eliminated A and C because they were complete OFS.
B. People in the country where the outbreak occurred often consume foods produced from animals that eat antibiotics-laden livestock feed.
D. Drug-resistant strains of salmonella have not been found in countries in which antibiotics are not generally available.
E. Salmonella has been shown to spread easily along the distribution chains of certain vegetables, such as raw tomatoes.
But I find B, D and E all are competitive.
Dear RichaChampion,
I'm happy to respond.
This is an example of a GMAT CR question in which some general
outside knowledge is helpful. You don't need to have an advanced degree in microbiology. You simply need to be aware of issues debated in the news.
This question taps into one of the biggest medical controversies over the past 10-20 years. You see, modern doctors proscribe antibiotics all the time. Antibiotics are medicines that attack & kill bacteria. Bacteria evolve all the time, and in some instances, doctors have seen strains of bacteria that have developed a resistance to the antibiotics: in other words, these are newer bacteria that are not harmed by the common antibiotics that used to kill all the old bacteria. This is evolution by natural selection at work: the bacteria that have an advantage in passing on their genes are the ones that are not harmed by the antibiotic. Some people argue that antibiotics are way overused, and few of these people predict apocalyptic scenarios in which most of humanity will be wiped out by bacteria that have evolved resistance to all known drugs. While that position is quite extreme, it is part of the public debate, and contributes to a certain amount of the skepticism about the use/overuse of antibiotics. All this is what is going on in the sentence:
Investigators blame the severity of the outbreak on the overuse of antibiotics, since the salmonella bacteria tested were shown to be drug-resistant.
So, the investigators are saying that the presence of antibiotics leads to the selection of salmonella bacteria that have evolved a resistance to these antibiotics.
Then the author denies this, saying that the doctors don't give people in this country the antibiotics.
What would weaken the author's position is if we became aware of some other antibiotic-rich channel by which the bacteria evolution could be driven.
Choice (B) provides exactly that. If the animals are full of antibiotics, then the bacterial evolution could be taking place inside the animals, and by the time the meat arrives, it would be laden with bacteria that has already evolved resistance to those antibiotics. OA =
(B) Once again, this is a debate that has been happening for quite some time, and anyone who has read a newspaper or watched the daily TV news for a long time has come across this. This is the kind of common knowledge that anyone successful in business needs. It would not look good on your B-school interview if this issue came up and you were not aware of it at all. You can get this kind of knowledge only by a diligent study of reliable news sources each day.
Does all this make sense?
Mike