Scientists, puzzled about the development

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: conclusively proven Unsupported Relationship11% picked this

   It is a hypothesis that is taken by the scientists to be conclusively proven by the findings

   This paragraph had, like, nothing to do with the unstated assumption they're asking us about, since our paragraph is about people who didn't take penicillin, and the claim they're asking us is about people who do take it. This paragraph was definitely not conclusively proving anything about some people who do take penicillin.

   11%
2. B

   Unsupported Relationship5% picked this

   It is a generalization that, if true, rules out the possibility that some people who do not take penicillin

   This is saying that "if people who do take penicillin develop resistant-bacteria, that rules out the possibility that people who don't take penicillin develop resistant-bacteria." Huh? That's certainly not true. That's like saying, "if people who had previously read Harry Potter liked the movie, that rules out the possibility that people who had not previously read Harry Potter liked the movie." That's crazy talk. Both groups of viewers might like the movie. Both types of people might develop penicillin-resistant bacteria. In fact, it's not like we have to even talk about it as a possibility. The first sentence straight up tells us that such people exist. No unstated assumption, if true, can rule out the possibility of something we've already been told exists.

   5%
3. C

   Correct66% picked this

   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

   Why this is right

   This is still somewhat weird, but we can make a stronger case against all the other answer choices. Essentially, this answer is saying ... Our normal background assumption, that people who do take P can develop P-resistant bacteria + The first sentence's puzzling fact, that people who don't take P are also developing P-resistant bacteria ... frames the question that the rest of the paragraph is trying answer. The first sentence, along with this unstated assumption, help to create the paradoxical mystery that scientists are puzzled by. Honestly, it feels weird to give this claim any "credit" for doing anything, because the paragraph already made sense without it. If we have a common sense understanding of where penicillin-resistant bacteria come from, then it's self-sufficiently puzzling to read the first sentence and wonder how these people who aren't taking an anti-bacterial substance are still developing resistant bacteria.

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   66%
4. D

   Wrong Role4% picked this

   It is the tentative conclusion of previous research that appears to be falsified by the scientists’ discovery of the mechanism by which

   As soon as we see the word conclusion we should be long gone. We never even met this guy before. Now you're telling me I'm married to him? What I mean by that is we shouldn't be tempted to give this random passerby such an important role in this paragraph. We weren't talking about him. We weren't referring to him as a previous research conclusion. We weren't trying to falsify him. This assumption has almost nothing to do with the conversation of the paragraph, because the paragraph is trying to solve a causal mystery about people who don't take penicillin.

   4%
5. E

   Too Strong14% picked this

   It is a generalization assumed by the scientists to conclusively prove that the explanation of their problem case must involve reference to the

   Too Strong: conclusively prove Too Strong: must involve reference Again, I would be turned off by using such strong and important language for a random claim we just met when we reached the question stem. There was nothing integral about this claim because it wasn't even on our radar as we read the passage. Thus, it would seem way off to refer to it as something that conclusively proves their solution to the causal mystery must involve the genetics of penicillin-resistant bacteria.

   14%