#19 - It is unlikely that the world will ever be free of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (B)

The conclusion in this case is presented in the first sentence of the stimulus: It is unlikely that the world
will ever be free of disease. This conclusion is based on the premise that most diseases are caused by
microorganisms that quickly adapt to new medicines, while maintaining the ability to infect and kill
humans.

The question asks us to identify the role of the first sentence, which is the conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (A): Even though the first sentence is the conclusion, it is not supported by any premises
about numerous microorganisms. “Prolific” means “productive,” and in this context it simply refers to
the ability of the microorganisms to adapt, survive, and continue infecting and killing humans. This
choice is wrong.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because the first sentence is the conclusion, and
it is supported by the premise that disease-causing microorganisms adapt well to medicines.

Answer choice (C): The claim in question is not a premise, so this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The first sentence in the stimulus is not a “generalization used to predict,” so this
choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The claim in question is the conclusion, but the argument is only that disease-causing
microorganisms adapt well to medicines, not that they are immune.

[bundleofnerves]

In the stimulus it says that the diseases microorganisms evolve immuniutites to those medicines. So why isn't E right?

[Adam Tyson]

It's a matter of present tense vs future tense, bundleofnerves. The microorganisms aren't immune at the outset; they evolve immunities over time as a result of the pressures exerted on them by the medicines. It's also important that as they evolve, they retain their ability to infect and kill. So it's not as simple as "they are immune, therefore we will always have diseases," which is what answer E is describing. It's "they develop immunity and retain their abilities, therefore we will always have diseases." Answer B describes that much more accurately and completely than answer E.

[victoria1234]

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)?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Victoria!

The conclusion of the stimulus is that it is unlikely that the world will ever be free from disease. The stimulus then provides the reasoning for this conclusion, which is that diseases are caused by prolific microorganisms which oftentimes develop immunities to the medicines designed to treat them.

The reason this functions as a support is as follows: since the microorganisms that cause cannot be eliminated by medicine (because they will develop an immunity to medicines and continue to infect and kill people), the world will likely never be free from diseases. Because disease-causing microorganisms cannot be eliminated, disease itself cannot be eliminated.


Answer choice B) says that the claim that the world will likely never be free from disease "is a conclusion for which a description of the responses of microorganisms to the medicines designed to cure the diseases they cause is offered as support." The description of the responses of the microorganisms to medicines simply provides support/rationale as to why we can draw the conclusion that the world will likely never be free from disease.

I hope this helps!