The Food and Drug Administration is reluctant to regulate the use of a

Question

The Food and Drug Administration is reluctant to regulate the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. It not only withdrew its own 34-yearold promise to restrict the routine use of penicillin and tetracyclines in farm animal feed, but also made it crystal clear that despite the increasingly common threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in supermarket meat, the F.D.A. would leave the regulating up to the meat industry itself.

However, very recently, the F.D.A. took an unexpected U-turn and announced restriction on the use of certain antibiotics, citing drug resistance as the cause. Yet, according to some analysts, this move is “a pathetic, token, and infuriating effort” by the F.D.A. They have reasons to feel that way. The F.D.A. announced a ban on “extra-label uses” of the cephalosporin family of antibiotics on livestock. These medicines are commonly prescribed to treat pneumonia and skin infections in humans. Indeed, cephalosporins are especially useful for children. It would be a real impediment if they were rendered ineffective from overuse in farm animals.

But the meat industry does not rely on this class of antibiotics to fatten its animals and its profits. Tom Philpott says that about 54,000 pounds of cephalosporins were used in food-producing animals in 2010. Sounds like a lot? Compare it with this. More than 29 million pounds of antibiotics were used on animals that year. Cephalosporins make up less than 1 percent of the total by weight, one-quarter of 1 percent according to NRDC. Actually, the use of cephalosporins dropped 41 percent from 2009 to 2010. But the use of penicillin and tetracyclines – the drugs the F.D.A. chose not to regulate a few weeks ago – increased 43 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

The ban will have some kind of positive impact on human health, alright. One can call this an important first step for the F.D.A. in restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and guarding against the spread of antibiotic- resistant bacteria. But, unless this tiny first step is followed by some truly gigantic ones that stand up to the meat industry and restrict the sort of growth-promoting antibiotics that are actually being used in huge quantities and that pose the greatest risks to human health, it won’t mean much at all.    1 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

A. reiterate the importance of a substantial move by the F.D.A. to complement another move.
B. expose F.D.A.’s pseudo concern about public health.
C. denounce F.D.A. for not regulating the routine use of penicillin and tetracyclines in farm animal feed.
D. highlight the insensitivity of the meat-packing industry toward general health of the consumers.
E. reveal the huge doses of antibiotics used in food-producing animals.

2 
 2. According to the passage, which of the following happened in 2010?

A. F.D.A. in a highly lauded move banned the use of antibiotics not too popular in the meat industry.
B. The meat packing industry reduced the use of penicillin and tetracyclines in farm animal feed.
C. The use of cephalosporins plummeted significantly in food-producing animals.
D. About 29 million pounds of antibiotics were used on animals that year.
E. F.D.A. banned use of certain antibiotics in meat industry citing drug resistance in cattle as cause.

3 
 3. Restricting use of a family of antibiotics that the meat industry does not rely upon for profits can be compared to:

A. To prevent depletion of fish in a pond, prohibiting fishing of a variety that constitutes a very insignificant number of fish leaving the rest to be openly exploited.
B. Prohibiting the disposal of industrial chemicals – a major cause of water pollution – into rivers.
C. Issuing a mandate to equip all vehicles with equipment that reduces the fuel efficiency, in order to restrict the release of carbon monoxide in the air.
D. Restricting the use of chlorine in indoor swimming facilities to prevent eye infection while increasing the risk of skin infection.
E. Extracting all molars to prevent the spread of infection that has spread to most molars, to other teeth.

4 
 4. The analysts feel that F.D.A. took a “token move” by banning the use of the cephalosporin family of antibiotics on livestock because:

A. Cephalosporins are very useful for children and the overuse in farm animals can render this drug ineffective.
B. the meat industry does not really need this family of drug to bloat up its cattle or profits.
C. F.D.A. will not take any big move to substantiate this small step.
D. F.D.A. will soon withdraw this ban, expressing its reluctance to regulate the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture as it did in the past.
E. analysts are prejudiced in thinking that F.D.A. took this step only to be patted on the back to boot.

5 
 5. From the last paragraph of the passage, it can be inferred that according to the author, ban on cephalosporin family of antibiotics on livestock by F.D.A. is:

A. a major shift
B. praise-worthy
C. inadequate
D. insignificant
E. hogwash

RC Butler 2022  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 73 Date: 18-Feb-2022
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2022 .  Click here for Details

yashvir45 · Answer

plz explain Q.4 here... i think the answer should be A

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

4. The analysts feel that F.D.A. took a “token move” by banning the use of the cephalosporin family of antibiotics on livestock because:

Difficulty Level:   Hard

Explanation

(A)  Out of Context: This is just the usage of the banned drug in humans.

(B) This is correct!

(C)  Out of Scope: This is not mentioned in the pertinent portion of the passage.

(D)  Out of Scope: This cannot be inferred from the passage.

(E)  Out of Scope: There is no mention of analysts being prejudiced.

Answer: B

chrisgeo · Answer

answer for Q1. please  Sajjad1994

JairajD · Answer

can you please explain the first questions option

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Paragraph 1 
Introduce the idea: F.D.A. is reluctant to control the use of antibiotics in the meat industry

Paragraph 2 
F.D.A. announces new ban that makes analysts critical of it

Paragraph 3 
Cites reason for analysts’ criticism

Paragraph 4 
Conclusion: If not supported by more substantial bans, the new move will be futile

(A)  CORRECT:   This is the re-word of what we predicted in the pre-thinking step.

(B)  Only Partial Scope: This is not the sole purpose of the author to write this passage.

(C)  Out of Scope: The author has not denounced the F.D.A. anywhere in the passage.

(D)  Only Partial Scope: This can be understood only from the third paragraph.

(E)  Only Partial Scope: This is mentioned only in the third paragraph.

Answer: A

Rickooreo · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994 ,

Can you please post explanation to question 2 and 3

thakurarun85 · Answer

In Q2 how "very recently" coincides with 2010. There is no reference or hint in the passage establishing the relation.

Please explain Q2

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

2. According to the passage, which of the following happened in 2010?

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

(A)  Out of Scope • This event did not take place in 2010.

(B)  Opposite • The last line of third paragraph just says the opposite.

(C)  CORRECT • This is the re-word of the information in the said paragraph.

(D)  Inconsistent • More than 29 million pounds of antibiotics were used.

(E)  Out of Scope • This event did not take place in 2010.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

3. Restricting use of a family of antibiotics that the meat industry does not rely upon for profits can be compared to:

Difficulty Level:   600-650

Explanation

(A)  CORRECT • This is very similar to the example of cephalosporin where the FDA has banned a little used antibiotic but has done little to limit the use of other antibiotics.

(B)  Opposite • It addresses the problem completely.

(C)  Out of Scope • This choice presents a solution that leads to another problem.

(D)  Out of Scope • This choice presents a solution that leads to another problem.

(E)  Opposite • This choice presents effective solution.

Answer: A

ashutosh_73 · Answer

I am not sure whether we have support for  ''substantial move''  in option A. Seems poorly worded. Below are my reasons:

1.  Author uses the word  unexpected  in P2-line 1: not synonymous with ''substantial
2. In P2-line 5, Author says ''They have reasons to feel that way- Negative tone 
3. In P4-line 5, Author says  ''this tiny first step

yashika001 · Answer

how the move inadequate not insignificant in ques 5?

yashika001 · Answer

how the ban on cephalosporin family of antibiotics is inadequate rather than insignificant in ques no 5??

Please explain

samarpan.g28 · Answer

Focus in these two bolded lines in the last paragraph:   The ban will have some kind of positive impact on human health, alright.  One can call this an important first step for the F.D.A. in restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and guarding against the spread of antibiotic- resistant bacteria.  But, unless this tiny first step is followed by some truly gigantic ones that stand up to the meat industry and restrict the sort of growth-promoting antibiotics that are actually being used in huge quantities and that pose the greatest risks to human health, it won’t mean much at all.

These suggest that FDA is partially on the right track, but they lack proper implementation yet to achieve success. That means the step they took is inadequate, not insignificant. Hope this helps.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

5. From the last paragraph of the passage, it can be inferred that according to the author, ban on cephalosporin family of antibiotics on livestock by F.D.A. is:

Explanation

Pre-thinking:

Paragraph 1:  F.D.A. announces new ban that makes analysts critical of it
 Paragraph 2:  Cites reason for analysts’ criticism
 Paragraph 3:  Introduce the idea: F.D.A. reluctant to control use of antibiotics in meat industry
 Paragraph 4:  Conclusion: If not supported by more substantial bans, new move will be futile

A. Correct:   This is the re-word of what we predicted in the pre-thinking step.

B. Only Partial Scope:  This is not the sole purpose of the author to write this passage.

C. Out of Scope:  The author has not denounced the F.D.A. anywhere in the passage.

D. Only Partial Scope:  This can be understood only from the third paragraph.

E. Only Partial Scope:  This is mentioned only in the third paragraph.

Answer: A

sallyedu · Answer

Hello  Sajjad1994

For Question1 , how can we say that the move was substantial? the move is described as inadequate/not much significant in the para,

Should ans not be B or C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

This question is explained  here

Thank you.

abgmat01 · Answer

I am not sure whether we have support for ''substantial move'' in option A. Seems poorly worded

The Food and Drug Administration is reluctant to regulate the use of a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The Food and Drug Administration is reluctant to regulate the use of a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards