Can you elborate more on the last sentence? Why do you use the word 'can' that it can be the case that overuse is not the cause for outbreak? In which case can it not be the case? Also pls clarify in general why can that be a case
vshr wrote:
Hey Experts,
Choice D indicates that when cause (Antibiotics) is not present, effect (Salmonella) is absent as well. This strengthens the conviction that AB=>Salmonella and which in turns weakens the conclusion 'this(overuse of AB causing Salmonella) is unlikely'.
What am I missing here?
Thanks!
Notice that the point of the argument is not that use of antibiotics is not connected to development of drug-resistant strains of salmonella.
Rather, the point of the argument is that OVERUSE of antibiotics is not to blame for this particular outbreak in this particular country.
That conclusion is supported by the facts that patients in the country where the outbreak occurred cannot obtain antibiotics to treat illness without a prescription and that the country’s doctors prescribe antibiotics less readily than do doctors in any other European country. After all, those facts are reasons to believe that antibiotics have not been overused in the country.
So, the argument still works even if (D) is true, because it can be the case that overuse of antibiotics is not the cause of the outbreak even if, as (D) indicates, use of antibiotics is connected to development of drug-resistant strains.