vjsharma25 wrote:
My doubt about C is that,Do a microbiologists needs to experiment it PERSONALLY to have the complete knowledge about any species of organism.Means can't some other microbiologist(s) do the research and publish the result to others to gain the knowledge?
Option E says "No microbiologists can have the complete knowledge of any species of organism unless that microbiologist can cultivate that species in isolation".
Why B is OOS or false. OOS is the easiest reason I have seen to avoid an option. No personal offence to you IEsailor.
Looks like you've got a good point!
The author provides a great deal of evidence about how and why individual species of microbe can't be isolated. His conclusion, based on that evidence, is that microbiologists don't fully understand those microbes. The glaring hole in the argument is the assumption that biologists can only understand things that they isolate. This leads us to (C) as the closest answer.
(B) is the right answer to the wrong question type. The first two sentences of evidence can be pieced together to logically infer that (B) must be true. However, this is an Assumption question, not an Inference question. Assumptions are unstated facts that are necessary for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. If they are true, the author's conclusion is properly drawn, but if they are proven false then the author's conclusion is undermined despite his facts being otherwise correct. (B)
must be true as a consequence of his data, and (B) does not tie into his conclusion at all; for these two reasons, we can rule it out.
However, you're correct that we've made an error. The proper assumption is that no microbiologist can understand a microbe unless some microbiologists can isolate the bug. Indeed, it doesn't have to be the same one doing the isolating and the understanding. We've made a typo, and if you'll shoot me a PM with the source of the problem and a page number or problem ID number, I'll make sure it get's added to the errata sheet ASAP!