Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the hypothesis of the
scientists?
(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.
Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the hypothesis of the
scientists?
(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.
抗生素的使用能使产生一些抗生素的细菌,在人体里这些抗生素的细菌的发现被认为是吃了抗生素的药物引起的,可是一些科学家认为是吃了含有抗生素的肉引起的.
A是加强的.
呵呵~~谢谢gg!
虽然对于答案思路还不是很顺，尽量理解吧~~~
动物吃了抗生素，产生了抗药性的细菌，人吃了动物，得到了抗药性的细菌。
动物吃了抗生素，产生了抗药性的细菌，人吃了动物，得到了抗药性的细菌。
请问一下：
Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. // Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat. //前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因 //后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？ 刚刚看到这题，没看选项之前并没有想到答案会利用被科学家不认同的信息，现在看来第一句是公共背景。
//前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因
//后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？
刚刚看到这题，没看选项之前并没有想到答案会利用被科学家不认同的信息，现在看来第一句是公共背景。
第一句是一个常规的思维模式
抗药细菌的出现是由于滥用抗生素
however是转折，说明未必是以上原因
文章提出另一个可能：大多数细菌是来源于吃了有细菌的肉，即细菌不是人体产生的，是外来的
however后的东西和第一句有平行并列关系
第一句是一个常规的思维模式
however后的东西和第一句有平行并列关系
平行并列关系？？？
howver后面无非说的就是对之前的意思的转折
howver后面无非说的就是对之前的意思的转折，就当其概念是平行的，意思是相反的就可以了。
Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. // Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat. //前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因 //后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？
//前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因
//后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？
Since the routine use of antibiotics can give rise to resistant bacteria capable of surviving antibiotic environments, the presence of resistant bacteria in people could be due to the human use of prescription antibiotics. // Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat. //前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因 //后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？
//前提出the presence of resistant bacteria in people的原因
//后科学家提出另一个原因，是不是因为most的使用，科学家并没有否顶前一原因，所以however的力度并没有大到去驳斥前一原因的程度，因此选项可以使用第一个原因作为有效信息去支持科学家的结论？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |