Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains

Question

Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains of the targeted virus. If only some strains of a targeted virus are killed by a given medication, there is a danger that, through random mutation or the emergence of other strains from natural reservoirs, resistant strains will gradually dominate those vulnerable to medication. If the antiviral medications are continually administered, for example to humans or cattle, there is a significant risk that existing medications will grow ineffective, leaving doctors with no remedies for these diseases.

The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. The same medicines are administered to both humans and cattle.
B. New medical developments will not effectively kill previously resistant strains.
C. Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains where none had existed before.
D. Viruses cause more diseases than other forms of infection, such as bacteria, prions, and molds.
E. Biotechnology and drug companies will work to develop new medications that attack resistant viral strains.

gmat6nplus1 · Accepted Answer

Hello my friend, I believe that either you copied the text of the argument incorrectly or you are testing our sentence correction skills.

Anyways the following argument would make much more sense, please edit your post and paste this:

Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains of the targeted virus. If only some strains of a targeted virus are killed by a given medication, there is a danger that, through random mutation or the emergence of other strains from natural reservoirs, resistant strains will gradually dominate those vulnerable to medication. If the antiviral medications are continually administered, for example to humans or cattle, there is a significant risk that existing medications will grow ineffective, leaving doctors with no remedies for these diseases.

Let's get to the answer: The conclusion is , as always, the key to the correct answer.

A The same medicines are administered to both humans and cattle.
-we don't care about this at all.

B New medical developments will not effectively kill previously resistant strains.
- there we go this is the correct answer, if new medical developments would kill previously resistant strains then doctors have a remedy. The argument falls.

C Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains where none had existed before.
- we don't care what viruses do.

D Viruses cause more diseases than other forms of infection, such as bacteria, prions, and molds.
- totally irrelevant.

E Biotechnology and drug companies will work to develop new medications that attack resistant viral strains.
- The author doesn't assume that, he says that doctors won't have a remedy for resistant viral strains.

The answer is B.

wastedyouth · Answer

my mistake ...copied incorrectly

idinuv · Answer

Please correct the original question (first post).

Abhishek009 · Answer

Antiviral Medication -Ineffective killing certain Virus.

If some strains are killed , there is danger that mutation of other strains might create resistant strains to those medication.

If those medications are continually administered there is a risk leaving those medications ineffective with no remedies left...

The Conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A The Same medicines are administered to both humans and cattle.

Not at all stated , the passage claims -

" ..... for Example to humans or cattle.... "

B  New medical Developments  will Not Effectively kill previously resistant strains.

Looks good....

C Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains where none had Existed before.

Not true..

D Viruses cause diseases More than Other Forms of Infection, Such as Bacteria, prions, and Molds.

Out of scope..

E Biotechnology and Drug companies will work to Develop new medications that attack resistant viral strains

Out of scope..

kinjiGC · Answer

The Conclusion is : " Continually If the Antiviral medications are administered, for Example to humans or cattle, there is a significant Risk that  existing medications will Grow ineffective , doctors with no remedies for Leaving These diseases"

I think option B is out of scope. The argument never talks about the  New Medicine

semwal · Answer

PREMISE- SINCE THE existing medications will Grow ineffective
CONCLUSION- Hence doctors  will  have no remedies for Leaving These diseases.

the conclusion predicts... note "will"......in conclusion......
only "B" matches........

B. New medical Developments will Not Effectively kill previously resistant strains. correct

kudos if you please.....

kinjiGC · Answer

I still don't agree with your explanation as

SINCE THE existing medications  will Grow ineffective , hence doctors will have no remedies for Leaving These diseases.

The conclusion itself states that existing medicine. Why should we even consider the new medicine.

swanidhi · Answer

Alright! I was unable to understand the introduction of new medicines into this context for a while. But I think I understand now.

The argument says - "there is a significant risk that existing medications will grow ineffective , leaving doctors with no remedies for these diseases."
So basically, it implies that the existing medication will turn out to be ineffective CAUSING doctors to have no remedies for these diseases. In other words, doctors will never be able to find a remedy to these diseases. As in NEVER in the future. Assumption --> No new meds can fix this.

B goes inline to this assumption, and is the correct answer.

+Kudos if this helped!!

deepthij · Answer

Hi,

Can someone tell me what the highlighted part in C means?

C. Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains  where none had Existed before .

pkm9995 · Answer

gmat6nplus1 
Well I cannot agree with B
Conclusion is :

it mentions about existing medicines only. That does not mean that in future there wont be any medicine to treat against the virus.

B. New medical Developments will Not Effectively kill previously resistant strains.

As per B,new medical developments is a future aspect where as conclusion is talking about the present. So if we have to support the 
conclusion we have to have an assumption from present tense.

If we negate B . New medical developments will effectively kill previously resistant strains., still conclusion does not fall apart.

Those who have any counter argument please comment.

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

The conclusion states that doctors will have no remedies for treating these diseases. The premise states that the existing medicines will grow ineffective. Hence the author assumes that the use of the existing medicines is the only means to treat the diseases. "C" states a consequence but is not a necessary assumption. Assumption is the unstated fact which leads to the conclusion. If we reverse answer choice "B" that new medical developments will effectively kill previously resistant strains then it goes against the conclusion. Hence that is the answer.

chesstitans · Answer

C is not strong enough to be the correct answer. Why? It is because of the conclusion, not any outside knowledge. 
B explains why it is dangerous for virus to mutate to a new resistant form against antiviral medication.

DharLog · Answer

Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains of the targeted virus. If only some strains of a targeted virus are killed by a given medication, there is a danger that, through random mutation or the emergence of other strains from natural reservoirs, resistant strains will Gradually Dominate Those Vulnerable to Medication. Continually If the Antiviral medications are administered, for Example to humans or cattle, there is a significant Risk that existing medications will Grow ineffective, doctors with no remedies for Leaving These diseases. The Conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A The Same medicines are administered to both humans and cattle.
does not matter

B New medical Developments will Not Effectively kill previously resistant strains.
 Yes   Negation of negation

C Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains where none had Existed before.
it is important, but not that important

D Viruses cause diseases More than Other Forms of Infection, Such as Bacteria, prions, and Molds.
irrelevant

E Biotechnology and Drug companies will work to Develop new medications that attack resistant viral strains
irrelevant

Actually there is simply no other choice except B

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

A The Same medicines are administered to both humans and cattle.
The medicines could be same their viability is called into question not their disntinguishability

B New medical Developments will Not Effectively kill previously resistant strains.
This even though intially we feel out of context we should understand that only if the above stated programme happens the premise will be strong that the mutants will emerge and making the current strain ineffective

C Existing viruses will mutate to form resistant strains where none had Existed before.
This is just stating directly from the passage

D Viruses cause diseases More than Other Forms of Infection, Such as Bacteria, prions, and Molds.
This is thoroughly out of context

E Biotechnology and Drug companies will work to Develop new medications that attack resistant viral strains
Similar reasoning as D

Hence IMO B

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Yeah same here. I think this question is not grim enough. If conclusion is “existing medications will Grow ineffective”, B should not be the answer, since it is saying “existing medication”, so “medication in the future” should be out of scope. But if conclusion is “doctors WILL have no remedies for treating these diseases”, I agree B is the answer, since the conclusion considers the medication in the future.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Many antiviral medications are effective at killing only some strains

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