Self-paced
A bacterial species will inevitably develop greater resistance within a few years to any antibiotics used against it, unless those antibiotics eliminate that species completely. ████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███████ █ ███████████
Stimulus Summary
The first sentence is a conditional with an exception. The default outcome: if you use any antibiotic against a bacterial species, the species develops greater resistance to that antibiotic within a few years. The "unless" carves out the one exception: the default outcome won't necessarily happen if the antibiotic wipes the species out completely. But if the antibiotic does not wipe out the whole species, then the default outcome happens.
The second sentence tells us that none of the antibiotics on the market is powerful enough to wipe X out completely. For those antibiotics, then, the exception isn't available.
Without the exception, the default applies. Any single currently-marketed antibiotic used against X leads to X developing greater resistance within a few years.
Anticipation
Most Strongly Supported usually requires process of elimination, but here the two sentences combine to produce a clear inference, so we can develop a strong anticipation. Let's look for an answer related to the idea that any antibiotic currently on the market, if used against X, will lead X to develop greater resistance to it.
11.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████
a
It is unlikely ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██
The stimulus only speaks to antibiotics "now on the market." (A) is about whether any antibiotic, including ones not yet developed, could be made strong enough to eliminate X. The stimulus is silent on that. We don't know whether X's survival is a permanent property of X or just a temporary limit of current pharmaceuticals. So (A) isn't supported.
b
If any antibiotic ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ █ ███ ██████
Strongly supported. Any antibiotic now on the market, by the second sentence, fails to eliminate X completely. The first sentence then guarantees that X develops greater resistance to those antibiotics within a few years.
c
The only way ██ ██████████ ███████████ █████████ ███████ █ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████
The stimulus tells us no single antibiotic on the market can eliminate X. The stimulus says nothing about combinations of antibiotics, and nothing about whether a yet-to-be-developed antibiotic might eliminate X solo.
d
Bacterial species X ████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████
Resistance is not the same thing as virulence. Resistance means X is harder to kill with a given antibiotic. Virulence means X is more dangerous to a person who catches it. X can become unkillable by every antibiotic on Earth and still be a mild infection. The stimulus only tells us about resistance, so it can't support a claim about X becoming more dangerous over time.
e
Bacterial species X ██ ████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███
The stimulus tells us what would happen if an on-market antibiotic were used against X. It doesn't tell us that there are some antibiotics that have actually been used against X. Maybe X has only been studied in a lab and never treated, in which case (E) is false. (E) isn't supported.