Epidemiologists have long debated the pandemic potential of H5N1, aka

Question

Epidemiologists have long debated the pandemic potential of H5N1, aka bird flu. On one hand, the virus spreads too inefficiently between humans to seem like much of a threat: it has caused fewer than 600 known cases of human flu since first emerging in 1997. On the other hand, when it does spread, it can be pretty deadly: nearly 60 percent of infected humans died from the virus. For years the research has suggested that mutations that enhanced the virus’s ability to spread among humans would simultaneously make it less deadly but in a batch of studies submitted for publication late last year, two scientists—Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands—have shown otherwise. Working separately, they each hit on a combination of mutations (five, in Fouchier’s case) that enables H5N1 to spread readily between humans without making it less deadly.

Efforts to publish those findings have been fraught. Critics say that making the methodology or gene sequences widely available amounts to giving would-be bioterrorists an easy recipe. They also worry that these man-made strains might escape from the lab.

Proponents counter that the threat of a global pandemic, were this mutated strain to arise in nature, is far greater than the threat of bioterrorism. Understanding what combination of mutations could transform H5N1 into a human pandemic virus gives epidemiologists a leg up on preparing countermeasures ; they can, for example, test existing vaccines against the new strain.

As of mid-December, both papers were being reviewed by the government’s National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). In the meantime, most experts agree that we need a better way. “Physicists have been doing sensitive, classified work for 70 years,” says Michael T. Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota and a member of the NSABB. “We have to find a way to do the same in the health sciences, without compromising our safety and security.”    1 
 1. According to the passage, the reason that pandemic potential of H5N1 was debated was:

A. even though the virus once contracted was deadly, it did not spread very efficiently from a sick person to a healthy person.
B. the mutations that enabled the virus to spread readily were not invented yet.
C. there were strains of the same family of virus that had not proved to be deadly.
D. the researchers did not want to give bioterrorists an easy weapon by labeling the virus deadly.
E. with nearly 60 percent of infected humans dying there was little to be gained by labeling the virus deadly.

2 
 2. What do the proponents imply when they argue “the threat of a global pandemic, were this mutated strain to arise in nature, is far greater than the threat of bioterrorism”?

A. If this particular deadly strain were to occur naturally, it may impact countries that may never be target of bioterrorism.
B. If this particular deadly strain were to occur naturally, bio terrorists may leverage it to further their cause.
C. If this particular deadly strain were to occur naturally, it may cause many more deaths than would be caused through bio terrorism.
D. Even though it’s possible to contain bioterrorism, it’s extremely difficult to contain a virus if it occurs naturally.
E. Those who are only concerned about the threat of bioterrorism – the critics – are unlikely to test the existing vaccines against the new deadly strains.

3 
 3. The author’s main purpose of writing the passage is to:

A. Present a new discovery in the field of health sciences that has led to a big debate.
B. Advocate an approach to solve a commonly occurring problem in scientific research.
C. Alert the readers of a potential possibly lethal epidemic.
D. Describe a scenario in which an invention leads to a further research.
E. Evaluate the various options using which a set of research findings can be securely shared.

4 
 4. What can be inferred about the mutations reported by Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier?

A. Their reported mutations were more deadly than prior deadliest known mutations.
B. There was little evidence that the mutations they reported were found in nature.
C. Their reported mutations spread more readily amongst humans than any known virus.
D. Each of their reported mutation was more deadly than the deadliest known mutation of H5N1.
E. It was highly likely that these mutations existed on earth sometime in the past and could be revived if possible.

RC Butler 2022  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 62 Date: 10-Feb-2022
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2022 .  Click here for Details

kakakakaak · Answer

can anyone explain answer to first question??

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

1. According to the passage, the reason that pandemic potential of H5N1 was debated was:

Explanation

Pre-Thought Detail:  Even if H5N1 is deadly, it does not spread that easily among humans to become a pandemic threat.

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

(B)  Inconsistent: This is not the complete information mentioned in the first paragraph.

(C)  Out of Scope: There is no mention of any virus of the same family.

(D)  Out of Scope: Labeling the virus deadly will not give bioterrorists any weapon.

(E)  Opposite: This is the reason why virus was called deadly.

Answer: A

SaathvikMK · Answer

Please provide the official explanation for the 3rd question.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

3. The author’s main purpose of writing the passage is to:

Explanation

Paragraph 1:  Introduce the idea → bird flu can be pandemic
 Paragraph 2:  Critics view on new studies on bird flu
 Paragraph 3:  Proponents view on new studies on bird flu
 Paragraph 4:  Conclusion → need for a mechanism to publish sensitive studies

(A)  CORRECT:   This is similar to what we arrived at during the pre-think step.

(B) Only partial Scope:  This is mentioned only in the last paragraph.

(C) Out of Scope:  There is no warning in the passage whatsoever.

(D) Inconsistent:  The passage talks of an invention that has led to a “debate”.

(E) Out of Scope:  The passage does not talk about various options.

Answer: A

minchakra · Answer

Sir, can you please explain Q4? I haven't noticed any phrase implying that there are no mutation occured naturally.

Thank you in advance.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

4. What can be inferred about the mutations reported by Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier?

Difficulty Level:   Medium

Explanation

Arrive at the correct answer through Process of Elimination.

(A)  This information is not correct.

(B)  This can be inferred from the passage.

(C)  The reported mutation has not been compared to  “any known virus”.

(D)  This is not what is written in the first paragraph.

(E)  This cannot be inferred from the passage.

Answer: B

hydr01 · Answer

I don't think these are good questions. For Q4, the passage does not mention anything about whether the mutations the two scientists tested could be found in nature or not. Also, for Q2, what differentiates C from D?

Oppenheimer1945 · Answer

Can you please mark and show where is B mentioned in the passage?

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The passage states that the two scientists, Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier, each discovered a combination of mutations that enabled H5N1 to spread readily between humans without making it less deadly. This suggests that these specific combinations of mutations were not commonly found in nature.

"For years the research has suggested that mutations that enhanced the virus’s ability to spread among humans would simultaneously make it less deadly but in a batch of studies submitted for publication late last year, two scientists—Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands—have shown otherwise. Working separately, they each hit on a combination of mutations (five, in Fouchier’s case) that enables H5N1 to spread readily between humans without making it less deadly."

saksham27singh · Answer

please provide full explanation for each questions it is not worth practicing without knowing where I am lacking

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Question #1:  Explanation

Question #3:  Explanation

Question #4:  Explanation

Only explanation to question #2 is missing please let me know if you need it.

Thank you!

mkeshri185 · Answer

What "new invention' does the author is talking about? I did not get how A is the answer. Option A says author is presenting new invention but author is not presenting any new invention he is talking about some researchers view and presenting its positive and negative view then in the end saying we need some new mechanism.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi mkeshri185

Take a look how the passage is built.

1. It starts by explaining the long-standing debate about H5N1’s pandemic potential (low transmissibility vs. high lethality).

2. Then it introduces new research showing that mutations can make it both highly transmissible and highly lethal.

3. It describes the controversy over publishing these findings (bioterrorism risk vs. public health benefit).

4. It mentions the NSABB review and ends with an expert saying we need a system for handling sensitive health science research, like physics has for classified work.

The passage presents a  new discovery and the resulting debate  about publishing dangerous information, ending with the idea that a better system is needed, so the best choice is A, because the core is presenting the discovery and the debate it sparked.

jonatasjun · Answer

Where is the pre-thinking step?
Thank you

Epidemiologists have long debated the pandemic potential of H5N1, aka

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

Epidemiologists have long debated the pandemic potential of H5N1, aka

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