The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken

The use of antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans
But now the Smee company may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics.
Smee has 60 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to Smee would certainly stop using the antibiotics

Conclusion: If Smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans.

We need to strengthen the argument:

(A) Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork.
We need to strengthen that if Smee makes this change, it will slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans. This options tells us that if Smee makes this change, others will also make the same change. Then all farmers may not use antibiotics and that will slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans. So this options is correct.

(B) The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene.

Irrelevant to our discussion. Even if the decline cannot be offset, we don't care. Less pork will mean less dose of antibiotics.

(C) Authorities are promoting the use of antibiotics to which microorganisms have not yet developed resistance.

Incorrect. We need to worry about what happens when Smee takes the step discussed.

(D) A phase-out of use of antibiotics for hogs in one country reduced usage by over 50 percent over five years.

Note here that though this may seem to help our cause, it is irrelevant to our argument. We need to figure out what will happen if Smee stops accepting antibiotics tainted pork. How the phase out happened in that country, what steps were taken by the hog industry etc we don't know. Our argument concludes about impact of Smee's ban and that is what we have to evaluate.

(E) If Smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, the firm's cost will probably increase.

Irrelevant. Cost is not being discussed.

Answer (A)
_________________

I believe it is A.

The main argument is "So if Smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans."

The effectiveness of antibiotics is weakened by eating pork raised with the antibiotics, found in sentence 1. Slowing this decline requires having less pork raised with those antibiotics.

Answer choice A suggests that if smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, other marketers will as well. This greatly reduces the amount of antibiotic raised pork on the market.

B and E are out of scope. Cost and hygiene are not mentioned in the argument.

C and D both involve antibiotics, but aren't part of the main argument, C offers an alternative and D has nothing to do with Smee.

Premise:
1. use of antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans.
2. smee is largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics.
3. farmers who sell to Smee would certainly stop using antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales.
4. smee has 60 % of market.

conclusion: So if Smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics’ effectiveness for humans.

Pre-thinking : if smee has 60% of market, which means 40% of the market is acquired by other marketers. if these 40% kept selling antibiotics pork then conclusion could not be achieved. Mind that this is a kind of pattern GMAT uses to make such kind of problems. Many problems are of this same framework. If something such as this need to stop, make sure others also not doing it.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

A. Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork. --- on the same lines as pre-thinking.
B. The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene. --- even if this is not less growth will be observed. but this is not evaluate the strategy question. if that then probably this one would be a contender.
C. Authorities are promoting the use of antibiotics to which microorganisms have not yet developed resistance. ---- out of scope.
D. A phaseout of use of antibiotics for hogs in one country reduced usage by over 50 percent over five years. --- irrelevant.
E. If Smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, the firm’s costs will probably increase. --- this is not out concern.
_________________

The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans because such use can spread resistance to those antibiotics among microorganisms. But now the Smee company, one of the largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics. Smee has 60 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to Smee would certainly stop using the antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales. So if Smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

A. Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork. -Sounds good. If competitors follow Smee, the usage of antibiotics will be definitely reduced.
B. The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene. - We are not interested in the population of hog and its control.
C. Authorities are promoting the use of antibiotics to which microorganisms have not yet developed resistance. - This will weaken the argument because it gives us an alternative
D. A phase-out of use of antibiotics for hogs in one country reduced usage by over 50 percent over five years - This doesn't tell in any way that how smee will have an impact on the usage of antibiotics.
E. If Smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, the firm's cost will probably increase. -We are definitely not bothered about the cost/profit of Smee.

Answer => A

Hello, shades28. The pith of the sentence is the suggestion that the overuse of antibiotics—in this scenario, as part of pig farming—can make bacteria more resistant to those same antibiotics, giving rise to a potential problem if humans need to be treated with them (perhaps to promote growth). I may not have had to mull over the matter because I used to volunteer in a hospital, and MRSA, a type of bacteria that had developed resistance to a commonly prescribed antibiotic at one time (methicillin, which lends MRSA its M), was a concern for both staff and patients. So, in short, the overuse of antibiotics diminishes their effectiveness thereafter. Hog farming just happens to be the vehicle for overuse in the passage.

I hope that helps clarify the matter. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

A. Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork. - If more marketers stop buying pork, seeing Smee's change, a very significant portion of marketers would stop buying the pork raised on feed with antibiotics, thereby reducing the benefits of using more antibiotics in feed. Therefore, the decline in effectiveness of antibiotics on humans will reduce (according to 1st sentence)
B. The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene.Improved hygiene is Out of Scope here because we are not concerned with hygiene, but with effectiveness of antibiotics on humans.
C. Authorities are promoting the use of antibiotics to which microorganisms have not yet developed resistance.Irrelevant because we are talking about pork feeding on growth-promoting antibiotics, not about any other antibiotics.
D. A phaseout of use of antibiotics for hogs in one country reduced usage by over 50 percent over five years.Irrelevant
E. If Smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, the firm’s costs will probably increase.Certainly not a strengthener, but a weakener. If Smee's costs would increase, it would reduce the cost by buying more pork raised with Antibiotics and thus, the effectiveness of antibiotics would decline sharply if Smee keeps buying the pork raised with antibiotics.

Answer - A.
_________________

Straight A.
Premise: The use of antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans.
Premise: Smee company may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics.
Conclusion: if Smee makes this change, it will probably slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans.
Assumption: the use of other pork company won't increase significantly

A fills the gap here, if other major marketers will stop buying pork raised on feed containing antibiotics as Smee do, the overall use of antibiotics will decrease, hence it will slow the decline in antibiotics effectiveness for humans

The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans because such use can spread resistance to those antibiotics among microorganisms. But now the Smee company, one of the largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics. Smee has 60 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to Smee would certainly stop using the antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales. So if Smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans.

if smee stop buying antibiotic feeded pork -> effectiveness of antibiotic will increase in human
given a)use of ab is creating resistance against micro-org b)smee largest port marketer ( 60% market cap) c) farmers will stop using ab

pre-thnk:
something that will strengthen the link plan->increase in effectiveness

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

(A) Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork.
40% market dont sell, overal consumption will decrease. it is touching the plan and effectiveness

(B) The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene.
out of scope discussion

(C) Authorities are promoting the use of antibiotics to which microorganisms have not yet developed resistance.
not touching the link

(D) A phase-out of use of antibiotics for hogs in one country reduced usage by over 50 percent over five years.
might look relevant, but doesnot say whther it will happen because of plan by smee?

(E) If Smee stops buying pork raised with antibiotics, the firm's cost will probably increase.
not sure, if cost will hamper the decision to buy

I'm stuck between A&B. I seem to treat this problem as "assumption." If negating B, we get "The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can NOT be offset by improved hygiene. " If so, consumers' demand may not be met by Smee and the consumers will turn to other companies that still use antibiotics. So the conclusion is destroyed. So this choice will be an assumption/a strengthener...

Could someone please help explain?

Since, this is a strengthen question, you cannot treat it as assumption question. An answer to assumption question does strengthen the argument, but the other way round in not correct.
Now, even if you had this question as an assumption question, B would not be a necessary assumption. B states that the decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene. This is not required for the argument to hold true. The decline in hog growth can be offset by some other means, say good nutrition. Also, if you negate this statement, it does not necessarily destroys the argument. You are correct with your negated statement, but you are making a lot of assumptions. The decline is hog growth does not mean that smee's demand for antibiotic free pork will not be met. The hog farmers may be producing a lot and their production decreased by a little amount.

A is correct as it says that other major pork marketers will also sell antibiotic free pork products, so consumers will have more access to such products, resulting in decline in antibiotics' effectiveness for humans.

Hello, warrior1991. Your query gave me a chuckle, I must confess. This is a case in which the structure of the sentence steers us more into one interpretation than another. That is, a decline has its opposite in whatever may offset it.

a) The decline in hog growth...
b) can be offset by improved hygiene.

The passive voice here does lend itself to misinterpretation, as though, say, a farmer washing his hands a little better could potentially help his pigs get fatter. I think the sentence in the active voice is a little clearer:

Improved hygiene can offset the decline in hog growth.

Sure, in hogs is only implied after hygiene, the same as before, but the sentence seeks an anchor for hygiene rather than supplying an unknown actor who may be doing the offsetting that is conveyed by can be offset; that anchor is found in the adjective hog. It is a tricky sentence to write without spelling everything out.

I hope that helps with your query. Thank you for bringing the question to my attention.

- Andrew
_________________

Two points to make here:
1. A correct answer to a strengthen question can reduce the probability that some new factor would interfere with the logic of the argument (in this case, a correct answer could state that the decline in the effectiveness of those antibiotics won’t accelerate over time even if their use is completely discontinued - as in the damage has already been done and now it’s a chain reaction). So your strategy is a bit dangerous.

2. Answer A actually does mention Smee in the last seven words:
(A) Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if Smee no longer buys such pork.
This describes a chain reaction, triggered by Smee’s decision.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Can some expert please help me with my doubt - why option B is wrong ?

Option B seems to also strengthen since if the decline in growth can be offset by hygiene , then wouldn't it help the fact that Smee company would buy this kind of pork and hence altogether this would help in slowing the decline for the effectiveness of the antibiotic for humans ?

🤔

In most explanations, B option is ruled out because it is out of scope.
But, it does have an effect on the decline of antibiotic's effectiveness on humans by elimination the use of antibiotics.
So, why can't B be right?

Could anyone please explain this?

AndrewN

Though I marked the answer correct, I was wondering what is option B actually conveying??


Improved hygiene of humans or hog ??

Please help.
_________________

Hi avigutman - i have not seen the OA intentionally but i was not sure between A and D

I did not choose A on 1st attempt because

It doesnt address the situation regarding Smee specifically.

Will the decline in effectiveness for humans slow down if Smee specifically stops buying pork

Based on past experience, i have seen many answer choices rendered wrong because it doesnt talk about the specific subject (Smee)

Hence I eliminated A.

Any suggestions on what is wrong in my technique ?

AndrewN avigutman

Could someone please explain the first sentence of the argument? I couldn't understand it and was bamboozled.
The use of antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their (antibiotics) effectiveness in treating humans and the reason has been mentioned. I am unable to understand the reason.

In this argument smee company has 60% share for pork. And says that it will stop using antibiotics and also farm will stop so conclusion is that effective of antibiotics will also decrease in humans .

This can be strengthened only when other 40 % of company’s who produce pork will follow the footstep of smee company

Posted from my mobile device