A
Book publishers have always been very interested in making money.
The author never denied that publishers were very interested in making money in the past. The author’s point is just that their desire for money has increased.
B
There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.
This provides an alternate explanation for the decline in publication of books of intrinsic merits. If there’s been a decline in the quality of books written, that could reasonably mean there are fewer books of intrinsic merit available for publication.
C
In the past, often books of intrinsic value would unexpectedly make a sizable profit.
If the profits were “unexpected,” the publishers didn’t know which books of intrinsic merit would lead to profits. So, we can’t read (C) as suggesting that the past publication of books of intrinsic merit was due to a desire to make profit.
D
There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.
This answer doesn’t suggest any reason to think there’s been an increase in the number of authors unwilling to publish. So, this doesn’t explain a decrease in the number of books of intrinsic merit being published.
E
In recent years, profits in the book publishing industry have been declining.
This doesn’t provide an alternate explanation for a decline in the publication of books of intrinsic merit. If anything, it could support the author’s theory by suggesting that declining profits might have lead publishers to become more competitve and more concerned about money.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
Scientists are super confused about penicillin-resistant bacteria in patients who don’t use penicillin. (Their confusion implies that resistance normally only occurs when people use penicillin.) However, the scientists have a solution: the bacteria are being naturally selected by mercury instead. This is supported by the bacteria being immune to mercury poisoning. We also learn that mercury-resistance genes are related to penicillin-resistance genes. Finally, the patients in question have mercury in their cavity fillings, giving us a source of mercury exposure.
Identify Argument Part
The assumption that some patients who take penicillin develop bacteria with an immunity to penicillin is part of what makes penicillin resistance without exposure to penicillin confusing.
A
It is a hypothesis that is taken by the scientists to be conclusively proven by the findings described in the passage.
Nothing in the argument is taken to prove a hypothesis that penicillin use can lead to penicillin-resistant bacteria. It’s also not a hypothesis at all, it’s an assumption that’s taken for granted and treated as a fact.
B
It is a generalization that, if true, rules out the possibility that some people who do not take penicillin develop bacteria resistant to it.
The scientists do not believe that penicillin leading to resistance would mean that penicillin is the only way to create resistance. The entire argument is based on the belief that some other factor could lead to resistance, and the scientists just have to figure out what.
C
It is a point that, in conjunction with the fact that some patients who do not take penicillin develop penicillin-resistant bacteria, generates the problem that prompted the research described in the passage.
This is exactly what the assumption about penicillin causing resistance does in the argument. It’s the reason that resistance in the absence of penicillin is confusing, leading to the scientists doing this research in the first place.
D
It is the tentative conclusion of previous research that appears to be falsified by the scientists’ discovery of the mechanism by which bacteria become resistant to mercury poisoning.
Nothing in this argument falsifies anything else. Mercury causing penicillin resistance doesn’t mean that penicillin can’t also cause penicillin resistance. Both are treated as compatible.
E
It is a generalization assumed by the scientists to conclusively prove that the explanation of their problem case must involve reference to the genetic makeup of the penicillin-resistant bacteria.
This is a trap; complicated does not mean correct. The assumption that penicillin can cause resistance doesn’t prove anything. It’s context for why the scientists are confused to start with.