Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
24 Feb 2021, 06:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
ankur2510
Hey ankur2510 ,
First, let's understand the structure of the argument:
1. Use of antibiotics gives rise to resistant bacteria. The presence of such bacteria in people could be due to the use of prescription antibiotics by humans.
2. But scientists have a different view. Their hypothesis: The presence of bacteria is because of the consumption of bacterially infected meat by a human.
The conclusion of the argument is the hypothesis of the scientist. And we have to strengthen it.
Let's look at options A and B.
Quote:
If antibiotics are added to livestock, then they will give rise to resistant bacteria. Now, if people consume the meat from livestock, then resistant bacteria will enter inside humans. Scientist's hypothesis is supported. Keep A
Quote:
This is a classic GMAT trap. Add words or phrases from the argument so that the option looks relevant, but it actually turns out to be a weakener.
Anyways! Food poisoning because of the consumption of bacterially infected meat by people is treated with antibiotics. So antibiotics enter inside humans NOT BECAUSE of the meat's consumption BUT BECAUSE of the use of prescription antibiotics to treat food poisoning!. And this is what the scientist's hypothesis is OPPOSING. This is actually weakening our conclusion. Eliminate B
I hope this will clear your doubt.
Regards,
Romil.
18 Apr 2022, 13:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
KarishmaB GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo ExpertsGlobal5 AjiteshArun MartyTargetTestPrep
Isn't the answer to this question dependent upon meaning of derive? If 'derive' means originate, then Option B could be correct as well because then we are only concerned with the source from which the transmission began and it is the consumption of meat. People took pills because of meat; hence, meat is the source.
Isn't the answer to this question dependent upon meaning of derive? If 'derive' means originate, then Option B could be correct as well because then we are only concerned with the source from which the transmission began and it is the consumption of meat. People took pills because of meat; hence, meat is the source.
18 Apr 2022, 20:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
waytowharton
The point of the argument is that there are counter beliefs - one says that use of prescription antibiotics leads to resistant bacteria in human body. The other says that most resistant bacteria in human body comes from consumption of meat (not from prescription antibiotics)
We need to strengthen the second belief (consumption of meat)
Option (A) says that cattle are given antibiotics routinely. This would explain why they may develop resistant bacteria and consuming meat may transfer this resistant bacteria to humans. So this works.
(B) People who consume tainted meat and develop food poisoning are given prescription antibiotics.
If prescription antibiotics are given, then we cannot say that meat was the reason. "Derived from meat" means comes from meat only. You need a reason that separates the two, not combines them. That shows that meat is the source of resistant bacteria in most cases, not prescription antibiotics.
