Bunuel
Organic chemist: Streptomycin and oxytetracycline are two anti-bacterial agents used in commercial farming, and may pose a serious public health risk down the line. These anti-bacterial agents are liberally applied to crops grown for animal feed and, as a result, it is common to find livestock with a build up of the chemicals in their bodies. In fact, levels of the antibiotics in livestock have been found to be up to 100 times what is needed to break down the natural bacterial eco-system of the animal, an outcome that leads to poor health outcomes for the animal and increases the risk of anti-biotic resistant bacterial strains evolving within them.
A disease specialist intends to use the chemist’s observations to argue that vancomycin, a compound that breaks down much faster than streptomycin and oxytetracycline, should replace them in the production of livestock feed, reducing the build-up of anti-biotic agents in livestock. Select the information that, if true, would most strengthen the disease specialists’ position, and that which, if true would most weaken it. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Disease Specialist's Argument:- Vancomycin breaks down much faster than streptomycin and oxytetracycline.
- Replacing streptomycin and oxytetracycline with vancomycin would reduce the build-up of antibiotics in livestock
Strengthening the Argument: We need to find a statement that supports the idea that vancomycin is a better alternative due to its faster breakdown and potentially lower environmental impact.
Weakening the Argument: We need to find a statement that undermines the argument, possibly by showing that vancomycin has its own issues or that the current antibiotics are not as problematic as suggested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- A high number of crop failures are attributed to bacterial infections each year
- This statement is unrelated to the argument about antibiotics in livestock feed. It discusses crop failures due to bacterial infections
- Neither strengthens nor weakens the argument
- Streptomycin and oxytetracycline are fairly cheap to produce
- statement suggests a cost advantage for streptomycin and oxytetracycline. However, it does not address the effectiveness or environmental impact
- Slightly weakens the argument
- Streptomycin and oxytetracycline runoff can damage water bodies
- statement highlights an environmental hazard caused by streptomycin and oxytetracycline, suggesting that replacing them with a faster-degrading antibiotic like vancomycin could reduce environmental damage
- Strengthens the argument by providing an additional reason to avoid streptomycin and oxytetracycline
- Vancomycin is effective against a narrower range of bacteria than streptomycin and oxytetracycline are
- statement suggests that vancomycin may not be as broadly effective in treating bacterial infections as streptomycin and oxytetracycline, potentially making it a less suitable replacement
- Weakens the argument by questioning the efficacy
- Streptomycin and oxytetracycline present in livestock further accumulate in humans who consume animal products
- statement highlights a public health risk associated with the accumulation of these antibiotics in humans
- Strengthens the argument by providing a health-related reason to avoid streptomycin and oxytetracycline
Both options 3 and 5 provide strong support, but Option 3 directly addresses the public health risk.