The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurs, yet surp

Its B.
Hi shoonya,the problem with E is that we are not concerned whether the typhus is fatal or not...the main point of the argument is why only a few evidence of this disease is found in the skeletons...its no where mentioned in the passage that typhus is fatal.

Q30. The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurs, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Infectious diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed are unaffected by tetracycline.
B. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer.
C. Typhus cannot be transmitted by ingesting bread or beer contaminated with the infectious agents of this disease.
D. Bread and beer were the only items in the diet of the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.
E. Typhus is generally fatal.

Vineet, you are right. E is nowhere mentioned in the passage. But, that's why we are looking for an assumption. The first line says

"The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurs, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease".

and the last one says

"Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians"

This clearly shows that the scientists assume that this disease was fatal, but still are surprised that only a few skeletons show the sign of the disease. They conclude that becuase pf tetracycline, only a few show signs of typhus. In other words, only a few contracted and died of typhus.

Hi shoonya...E is too extreme...we cant say that typhus is fatal and caused the death...may be the people died because of another disease and could have typhus also...but not to the degree of fatality...

premise : few of Nubian skeletons show the usual evidence of typhus disease despite living in an area where thyphus occur

premise : skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacteria
premise : This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread.

conclusion : tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus.

A. Infectious diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed are unaffected by tetracycline. OUT OF SCOPE we are only considered abt typhus
B. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer. if we negate this statement then conclusion falls apart. If teracycline is rendered ineffective then it would not prevent Thyhus and it could be the reason for low incidence. IMO correct answer
C. Typhus cannot be transmitted by ingesting bread or beer contaminated with the infectious agents of this disease. We are dealing with tetracycline preventing thypus, thus transmission of thyhus is irrelevent.
D. Bread and beer were the only items in the diet of the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline. if we negate this statement : bread and beer were not the only item which contained tetracycline. tihs dosnot undermine the conclusion that tetracycline prevented thypus
E. Typhus is generally fatal out of scope

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Infectious diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed are unaffected by tetracycline.

Wrong: Other diseases out of scope.

B. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer.

Correct: Negating this kills the argument, because the negation shows that tetracycline could not be the reason fire the low incidence of typhus.

C. Typhus cannot be transmitted by ingesting bread or beer contaminated with the infectious agents of this disease.

Wrong (good trap):
Whether typhus could be transmitted does not affect whether tetracycline prevented incidences of typhus.

D. Bread and beer were the only items in the diet of the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.

Wrong (good trap):
How Nubians obtained tetracycline does not affect conclusion.

E. Typhus is generally fatal.

Wrong: Fatality of typhus does not affect conclusion.

B is correct.

A. Infectious diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed are unaffected by tetracycline. --> we don't care; our concern is typhus here

B. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer. -->BINGO!!!; if this is wasn't true, then antibiotic wouldn't have gotten in Nubians' diet and the claim becomes invalid

C. Typhus cannot be transmitted by ingesting bread or beer contaminated with the infectious agents of this disease. --> we're more concerned with antibiotic here than the nature of the disease itself

D. Bread and beer were the only items in the diet of the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline. --> great! doesn't help us

E. Typhus is generally fatal. --> background fact

Hi everyone, anyone with a similar line of reasoning check this.

Conclusion : tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.

Premise : The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurs, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread.

Now as per the explanation offered for E we can conclude that since typhus is fatal its incidence will be shown in the skeletons. But aren't we already given that....
their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease this is non questionable since it is the part of the argument and there is no reason to doubt or bolster it.

As per the explanation offered by B, we can conclude that since tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer, therefore tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil that can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet: beer and bread,
in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.
Hope this helps!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.