gunster wrote:
Not the best question in the world IMO - I think this is one where you have to go through by process of elimination.
Argument: Eliminating trace amounts of diclofenac effluents from pharmaceutical laboratories will improve public health. Why?
Let's look at the answers:
A. Diclofenac effluents, even in large amounts, are harmless to humans. We can eliminate this, since it directly contradicts the argument. If even large amounts of whatever this thing is are harmless to humans, then eliminating them will not improve public health.
B. Bacteria can become resistant to diclofenac effluents. Well, if these things are used in pharmaceuticals - meaning it's probably a material for medicine - then that's pretty bad. It means that disease-causing bacteria in the water will be resistant to medicine, and you can be exposed to these bacteria if you swim in the rivers and lakes. However, this may still be off topic and we may find a better answer. We don't eliminate it and keep going.
C. The side effects of medicines have not been fully explored - we can eliminate this, since this doesn't mention anything about whether diclofenac effluent is good or bad. If it's not fully explored, we can't justify saying whether it is good or bad for us.
D. Again, an answer that goes against our argument. If it breaks down into harmless substance, there's no logic for why we need to remove it.
E. Some of the effluent can counteract possible harmful effects of other such medical pollutants found there. This is the trap answer - there's too much generality for it to be considered. The fact that it says "possible" harmful effects means we cannot determine for sure that removing the effluents will help public health, which is what the argument states. If this answer said "diclofenac effluents counteract harmful effects from other medical pollutants", I think I would've picked this answer.
Going through the answers, only B and E possibly make sense. B is the better answer - it is more specific, definitely states something harmful to human health that can be prevented (disease-causing bacteria vs. POSSIBLE harmful effects), and is my answer.
Hi
IMO there's no ambiguity in the question.
Answer is clearly B.
Question asks - eliminating these trace amounts from the water will have public health benefits, since _________________.
Option E infact gives a reason why trace amounts of diclofenac will be beneficial, hence it is weakening the argument. We have to choose the option which indicates the reason why eliminating trace amounts is beneficial. Only option B fits.