It is unlikely that the world will ever be free of disease. Most

nightblade354 generis ammuseeru GMATNinja pikolo2510

Faltered in choosing E over B because of sophisticated language.


Main conclusion of argument.


Here is how I would paraphrase it:
Specific microorganisms develop some sort of immunity since they can predict how medicines
will attempt to kill them. Hence these microorganisms shall still be able to infect people and kill them.



I would treat conclusion as a bold face. Then decide what role did conclusion play w.r.t entire argument.


Incorrect because of underlined portion.


How apt it is to break the PoE further in to its clauses when to understand it better:
It is a conclusion

for which a description (premise) of the responses of microorganisms to the medicines
designed to cure the disease they cause is offered as support
This is almost close to paraphrasing the premise. I unfortunately fell in to underlined trap.
Hopefully I should have noticed no contrasting words such as however, yet, etc. in argument


Did not bother to read beyond red part, the first sentence is a conclusion not a premise. Easy out.


This is probably a bit more than generalization, it is claim derived from premise by author not an opinion or judgement.


Oh boy, was I so close!!


All good till here.


But ultimately the microorganisms if not treated do infect people and even kill them. This is CLEARLY mentioned in argument.
Where did my reasoning falter?

Small ending note: Plural of impunity is immunity not immunities, may be my Editorial friend will catch you up on this

Posted from my mobile device