Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the hypothesis of the scientists?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. |
|
| Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage presents two competing explanations for resistant bacteria in humans. First, we get the logical connection that since antibiotics create resistant bacteria, human antibiotic use could be the source. Then scientists offer a different theory - that eating infected meat is the main source.
Main Conclusion:
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it simply presents two competing scientific hypotheses about the source of resistant bacteria in humans
Logical Structure:
This is actually an incomplete argument that sets up a debate between two theories. The first theory uses cause-and-effect reasoning (antibiotics cause resistance, so antibiotic use could explain resistant bacteria in people). The second theory proposes an alternative causal pathway (infected meat as the source). The question asks us to strengthen the scientists' meat-consumption hypothesis.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find evidence that makes the scientists' hypothesis (that resistant bacteria in people comes from eating infected meat) more believable
Precision of Claims
The scientists claim that 'most' resistant bacteria in people comes from meat consumption, not from prescription antibiotic use. We need to focus on the relative importance of these two sources
Strategy
To strengthen the scientists' meat-consumption hypothesis, we need evidence that either: (1) shows meat is a major source of resistant bacteria transfer to humans, (2) shows prescription antibiotics are less significant than previously thought, or (3) demonstrates a clear connection between eating infected meat and developing resistant bacteria in humans
This significantly strengthens the scientists' hypothesis. If antibiotics are routinely given to livestock, this creates the perfect setup for the scientists' theory. We know from the passage that routine antibiotic use creates resistant bacteria. So livestock getting antibiotics would develop resistant bacteria, and when people eat this meat, they'd get exposed to those resistant bacteria. This creates a clear pathway: livestock antibiotics → resistant bacteria in animals → resistant bacteria transferred to humans through meat consumption. This directly supports why meat could be the main source rather than human antibiotic use.
This actually weakens the scientists' hypothesis rather than strengthening it. If people who get food poisoning from infected meat are then treated with prescription antibiotics, this muddies the waters about the source of resistant bacteria. We couldn't tell if the resistant bacteria came from the meat itself or from the subsequent antibiotic treatment. The scientists want to show meat consumption as the primary source, but this choice suggests prescription antibiotics might still be the key factor.
This doesn't clearly strengthen the scientists' meat-consumption hypothesis. While it shows a pattern (more resistant bacteria in urban areas), it doesn't establish that this difference is due to meat consumption versus other factors. Urban and rural areas differ in many ways - healthcare access, antibiotic prescribing patterns, food sources, population density, etc. Without knowing that urban areas consume more infected meat or that rural/urban meat consumption patterns explain this difference, this data point doesn't specifically support the meat theory.
This actually strengthens the opposing theory rather than the scientists' hypothesis. If people who never took prescription antibiotics are least likely to have resistant bacteria, this suggests that prescription antibiotic use IS a major factor in developing resistant bacteria. This supports the first theory mentioned in the passage (that human antibiotic use causes resistant bacteria) rather than the scientists' meat-consumption theory.
This is what livestock producers claim, but their claim doesn't strengthen the scientists' hypothesis. In fact, if we believed this claim, it would weaken the scientists' theory since it denies that resistant bacteria can be transmitted through meat. However, we should be skeptical of this claim since livestock producers have a vested interest in denying any health risks from their products. But even as a potentially biased claim, it doesn't provide evidence supporting the meat-consumption hypothesis.