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.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
03 Jun 2026, 19:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
I have just one doubt regarding option D. Negating option D gives us that - Tetracycline is rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the process involved in making bread and beer. but the conclusion is tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians. So this may still hold true as nowhere in the argument it is mentioned that they only ate beer and bread. Yes it is their staple but is it their only food source?
03 Jun 2026, 23:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
HarshKasliwal
Your objection is fair, but the argument’s evidence for tetracycline in food comes specifically through beer and bread.
The passage says the bacterium flourished on dried grain used for two staples: beer and bread. So answer choice D attacks the only food pathway actually given. If making beer and bread made tetracycline ineffective, then that pathway no longer explains the low typhus rate.
Yes, they may have eaten other foods, but the argument gives no evidence that those other foods contained effective tetracycline. In CR, we do not save the argument by adding an unsupported alternative source.
04 Jun 2026, 00:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi @HarshKasliwal,
Your negation of D is spot on. The catch is that this rescue route isn't part of this argument.
Look at the only evidence the author actually gives for how tetracycline got into the Nubians:
- The bacterium flourishes on the dried grain.
- That grain is used to make bread and beer.
- Therefore tetracycline was in their food.
The author builds the entire chain on bread and beer. There is no premise about any other tetracycline-carrying food. So when you negate D and the bread/beer process destroys the antibiotic, the only pathway the author offered collapses - and the conclusion is left with no support.
Where your thinking slips: to keep the conclusion alive you're importing a brand-new source ("some other food they ate"). But that's information the stimulus never gives you. An assumption question asks what this argument needs - and you can't repair it by inventing a fresh premise. If the author wanted to lean on other foods, they'd have to make a different argument entirely.
Notice the test even baits you with this elsewhere: choice E is wrong precisely because the argument does not require bread and beer to be the only sources. But "not the only source" is different from "the argument's stated source must actually work." D protects the author's one stated mechanism - and that's why it's required.
Quick way to feel it: imagine I argue, "Vitamin C in oranges keeps Tom healthy, because he eats oranges daily." A required assumption is that the oranges still contain usable vitamin C. Saying "well, Tom might get vitamin C from somewhere else" doesn't save my argument - it just replaces it with yours. Same move here.
Answer: D
Your negation of D is spot on. The catch is that this rescue route isn't part of this argument.
Look at the only evidence the author actually gives for how tetracycline got into the Nubians:
- The bacterium flourishes on the dried grain.
- That grain is used to make bread and beer.
- Therefore tetracycline was in their food.
The author builds the entire chain on bread and beer. There is no premise about any other tetracycline-carrying food. So when you negate D and the bread/beer process destroys the antibiotic, the only pathway the author offered collapses - and the conclusion is left with no support.
Where your thinking slips: to keep the conclusion alive you're importing a brand-new source ("some other food they ate"). But that's information the stimulus never gives you. An assumption question asks what this argument needs - and you can't repair it by inventing a fresh premise. If the author wanted to lean on other foods, they'd have to make a different argument entirely.
Notice the test even baits you with this elsewhere: choice E is wrong precisely because the argument does not require bread and beer to be the only sources. But "not the only source" is different from "the argument's stated source must actually work." D protects the author's one stated mechanism - and that's why it's required.
Quick way to feel it: imagine I argue, "Vitamin C in oranges keeps Tom healthy, because he eats oranges daily." A required assumption is that the oranges still contain usable vitamin C. Saying "well, Tom might get vitamin C from somewhere else" doesn't save my argument - it just replaces it with yours. Same move here.
Answer: D
HarshKasliwal
