Q19 - It is unlikely that the world

[aileenann]

For this question we need to analyze the argument's structure. The portion of the argument they are asking us about is the conclusion, so this should be straightforward. If something is a conclusion, it is not evidence, an intermediate conclusion, a fact, or an assumption. This should make it pretty straightforward to eliminate (C). The others use "conclusion" or "generalization" both of which can indicate a conclusion. Looks like we'll have to sort these more finely.

(A) indicates the wrong premise supporting the conclusion - the conclusion is based more on the organisms' ability to evolve and not so much on their being numerous - this has a scope issue, so it's out.

(B) indicates the correct premise upon which the argument relies - we can see this (other than the conclusion itself) in particular "they quickly evolve immunities to those medicines."

(D) looked promising at first - conclusions can be generalizations, but when we get more into the text here, we see that "generalization" is being used as a premise not as a conclusion here (since it says it is used "to predict." This is out.

(E) is close - quite tempting - but no cigar. It's not the immunity but rather the evolution that supports the strong wording of the conclusion that we will *never* be free (i.e. no matter how good the medicines get).

So (B) is our answer. Any questions about this one?

[ginsburgb]

Hi there. I'm still uncertain why B is the answer. I am stuck on how we can say that "...responses of microorganisms to the medicines designed to cure the diseases they cause is offered as support."

How do we know the medicines are designed to cure the diseases cauesed by microorganisms? Couldn't the medicines be designed to kill/attack the mircoorganisms themselves and not the diseases they cause?

[mrueda08]

Can someone further elaborate on the difference between "B" and "E"? Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi mrueda08,

Thanks for your question. (B) and (E) are very close! Both correctly identify the line in question as the conclusion. But what is the correct premise? Let’s look back at the argument. The author concludes that the world will never be free from disease. Why? Because disease agents stay ahead of medicine by quickly evolving.

(E) is tempting, but the premise here isn’t that microorganisms are immune to medicine. Remember, the author concludes that the world will NEVER be free from disease. What matters here is not so much that bacteria are immune to medicine NOW, but that they will CONTINUALLY evolve. The time scale is important: the organisms’ continued evolution ensures that they will remain potent forever, no matter what medicine throws at them.

(B) is correct. It is the microorganisms’ response to medicine (their continued evolution) that ensures their everlasting power.

Does that clear it up?

[GolddiggerF208]

Thanks guys!

One more point to (E) - the stimulus only mentions "very prolific microorganisms" which cannot be equal to "most microorganisms."

[Sung MinP119]

for (b) how can it be a support? power to infect and killing humans seems to be a original ability of their own. And the cure just made them evolve immunity and overcome it, which does not support anything....the power to infect or to kill humans were there all along. So how can it be said as a support, as it did not offered anything except overcoming its obstacle(the affect of the cure)?