shwetachauhan
It is difficult to keep deep wounds free of bacteria. Even strong antibiotics fail to kill the bacteria that live in such wounds. However, many physicians have succeeded in eliminating bacteria from deep wounds by packing the wound with a sweet substance like sugar.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why treating deep wounds with sugar as described above is successful?
(A) Bacteria that live in deep wounds thrive in a moist environment, and sugar has a dehydrating effect.
(B) Sugar that is nearly pure is readily available for use in medical treatments.
(C) Many kinds of bacteria can use sugar as a nutrient and will reproduce rapidly when sugar is available to them.
(D) Some foods that contain sugar can weaken the effects of certain antibiotics.
(E) Strong antibiotics were developed only recently, but the use of sugar as a treatment for wounds dates back to ancient times.
Mention why you eliminated each option
TIA
This is a resolve/explain question. In these types of questions we have two conflicting statements that present a puzzle, discrepancy, or paradox that we must explain.
In this situation, we have two contradictory facts. Wounds are hard to keep free of bacteria and even antibiotics are not effective. Sugar, however, is effective.
Why?
(A) is the credited response. Sugar can eliminate the moisture that bacteria need.
(B) is irrelevant. It does not provide any benefit of sugar against bacteria.
(C) is the opposite answer. It intensifies the problem rather than resolving it.
(D) is irrelevant. We are talking about not eating sugar but packing it into a wound.
(E) is irrelevant. The age of the treatment does not explain why it is successful.