Summary
A bacterial species will develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it. The only exception to this inevitable development of greater resistance is when the antibiotics eliminates the bacterial species completely. But, no single antibiotic now on the market can eliminate bacterial species X completely.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If any single antibiotic currently on the market is used against bacterial species X, the species will develop greater resistance against that antibiotic.
A
It is unlikely that any antibiotic can be developed that will completely eliminate bacterial species X.
Unsupported. The stimulus tells us about antibiotics currently on the market. We don’t know about future antibiotics and their ability to kill bacterial species X completely.
B
If any antibiotic now on the market is used against bacterial species X, that species will develop greater resistance to it within a few years.
Strongly supported. We know no antibiotic currently on the market can kill X completely. So, if used against X, X will develop a resistance against that currently-on-the-market antibiotic.
C
The only way of completely eliminating bacterial species X is by a combination of two or more antibiotics now on the market.
Unsupported. We don’t know that this is the only way. Maybe another way is to develop a new antibiotic that can kill X completely. The stimulus doesn’t suggest this can’t be done.
D
Bacterial species X will inevitably become more virulent in the course of time.
Unsupported. The stimulus allows us to conclude that X will develop greater resistance to any currently-on-the-market antibiotic used against it. This doesn’t imply anything about the level of danger or harm (virulence) posed by X and whether it will change.
E
Bacterial species X is more resistant to at least some antibiotics that have been used against it than it was before those antibiotics were used against it.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any antibiotics have ever been tried against X.
Summarize Argument
Criticism by politicians that their opponents’ ideas are incomprehensible is insincere. Incomprehensible political agendas will not be realized because political mobilization requires many people to work with a common purpose. Every politician knows this. This implies that any politician would not actually promote their ideas incomprehensibly, making the criticism insincere.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about criticizing political opponents for incomprehensible messaging: “Such criticism, however, is never sincere.”
A
People who promote political agendas in an incomprehensible manner should be regarded as insincere.
This misrepresents the argument. The criticism is what the political scientist calls insincere, not those who promote agendas incomprehensibly.
B
Sincere critics of the proponents of a political agenda should not focus their criticisms on the manner in which that agenda is promoted.
The author makes no claims about what sincere critics do. Additionally, the author only claims that criticisms about incomprehensibility are insincere. There could be other valid criticisms on the manner of promotion.
C
The ineffectiveness of a confusingly promoted political agenda is a reason for refraining from, rather than engaging in, criticism of those who are promoting it.
The political scientist simply claims that the criticism is insincere. He does not make claims about reasons to refrain or engage in the criticism.
D
A politician criticizing his or her political opponents for presenting their political agendas in an incomprehensible manner is being insincere.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The political scientist says this type of criticism is insincere, therefore a politician who engages in it is being insincere.
E
To mobilize large numbers of people in support of a political agenda, that political agenda must be presented in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood.
This is support for why criticism about incomprehensibility is insincere. Political messaging must necessarily be understandable.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did people who ate lots of beta-carotene in their food avoid deadly cancer and heart disease when people taking beta-carotene supplements experienced no changes to their health?
Objective
The correct answer must fail to explain why people in the two studies experienced such different health outcomes. Every wrong answer, meanwhile, will state a flaw in the studies’ designs or explain why people who eat foods rich in beta-carotene are less likely to die from cancer and heart disease than those who take a supplement.
A
The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene process more of it than those who only take supplements.
B
Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
This would explain why people in the first study showed benefits while people in the second study did not. Those in the second study did not consume high levels of beta-carotene over a long enough period to achieve health benefits.
C
Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.
This would explain the discrepancy. People who eat foods rich in beta-carotene eat food also rich in other nutrients, and those nutrients cause the lower risk of deadly cancer and heart disease.
D
In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
This does not explain the discrepancy. The author states that people who took the supplements experienced no health benefits, regardless of the placebo group.
E
In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
This would explain the discrepancy. People in the first study were less likely to die of cancer and heart disease because they were less likely to smoke cigarettes.