60.
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.
(B) Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics.
(C) The incidence of resistant bacteria in people has tended to be much higher in urban areas than in rural areas where meat is of comparable quality.
(D) People who have never taken prescription antibiotics are those least likely to develop resistant bacteria.
(E) Livestock producers claim that resistant bacteria in animals cannot be transmitted to people through infected meat.
A is the best answer.
If livestock are routinely fed antibiotics, as choice A states, meat from livestock is likely to contain the resistant bacteria, since any routine use of antibiotics can result in resistant bacteria. Thus, choice A is the best answer.
How cases of food poisoning are treated (choice B) fails to indicate whether the infecting bacteria are resistant bacteria.
Choice C suggests that meat consumption is not the primary culprit for the high incidence of resistant bacteria.
Choice D tends to support the competing hypothesis that prescription antibiotics are responsible.
Choice E asserts that livestock farmers claim that the hypothesis is false, but it provides no basis for evaluating the truth of this claim.
1）我不明白A, the hypothesis说：科学家认为人类体内的resistant bacteria是因为吃了被细菌感染的肉；ets对A的解释说: livestock吃了antibiotics--〉livestock体内含resistant bacteria--〉resistant bacteria转移到人类体内
问题在于虽然两种说法的共同点在于人类体内的resistant bacteria都是来自livestock，但这中间有差异,就是 “被细菌感染的肉 ”的食用而产生resistant bacteria与resistant bacteria的转移
2）不明白ets对B的解释,常识是细菌感染产生resistant bacteria，infecting bacteria 与 resistantbacteria是因果关系，怎么现在被相提并论？而且从题意，B是削弱，怎么似乎ets认为是无关
望牛牛们帮忙解惑！
原文
第一句话因果 ：人类吃含有抗生素的处方à人体内含有抗药性的细菌
第二句话他因反驳前面因果：科学家 人吃了受细菌感染的肉à抗药性细菌
(A)抗生素常常(routinely)加入饲料中à让牲畜成长快
+ 原文the first line:常常吃抗生素à抗药性细菌，假设人和动物只要常常吃抗生素à抗药性细菌
支持科学家说法：人吃了受抗药性细菌感染的肉à抗药性细菌
(B)肉和处方都是原因：肉是最先的原因，处方是中间原因à结果
原文第三个字routine(常常吃抗生素à抗药性细菌)，常常中毒才会常常服用含有抗生素的处方à人体内含有抗药性的细菌
食物中毒是因为吃下受哪一种细菌感染的肉，并没有指明是受抗药性的细菌感染的肉
非常感谢mm, 你解释的太清楚了！
关键在于believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat这句话的理解，here, bacterially infected meat 指抗药性细菌，不是广义上的细菌。
说实在的，我还是不是很明白这题，
dreamer71082的解释很详细，但加入了太多多余的假设，
有没有人可以再帮帮忙啊!
光这题就看了半个小时了….
我是一直困擾在A和E，有沒有人可以分一下
幫忙頂
不好意思重发了帖子，现在找到原帖了。
看了前人关于该题的讨论,但是我始终无法推出A的逻辑性。有没有大侠可以再详细说明一下，万分感谢！
当初我在A和B中选择.
谈谈我的看法
B Most people who develop food poisoning from bacterially infected meat are treated with prescription antibiotics
treat的结果有可能从病肉带过来的细菌被prescription antibiotics杀死
不能很好支持结论
hypothesis:Some scientists, however, believe that most resistant bacteria in people derive from human consumption of bacterially infected meat.不能当成立的条件。
(A) Antibiotics are routinely included in livestock feed so that livestock producers can increase the rate of growth of their animals.
we can get that antibiotics are included in meat from choice A,and people have eaten meat from the passage.But we also need an assumption that antibiotics can stay in people's bodies if they ate infected meat to conclude scientist's hypothesis.
这道题目我看了老半天，发现一个严重的矛盾。
题目说：Some scientists, however, believe that。。。这里的however标志着科学家的观点和第一句话的观点对立，即，第一句话认为抗药性细菌是由人们常服抗生素产生的，而科学家认为抗药性细菌是人们吃肉产生的。
答案A说：牲畜的饲料含有抗生素，暗示人们吃了这种牲畜的肉会产生抗药性细菌。那么，归根结底这个抗药性细菌还是从抗生素得来的。
这样看下来，答案A算是对科学家观点的支持还是反驳呢？我怎么越看越觉得不像是加强、反而是反驳呢？即，抗生素才是根本的原因，吃肉或者直接服用抗生素都只是抗生素进入人体的一条途径罢了。
这道题如果要加强科学家的观点，只有把肉和抗生素的联系给彻底切断才行，可答案A偏偏把两者架起桥来，这样就加强了文章第一句话的观点，而科学家的观点是与第一句话对立的，所以被削弱了。
虽然我知道我这个“异见”肯定得不到支持，难道OG会错么，那么多人都做过，也没人说这个答案有问题，但是，我还是胆大包天地把我的想法提出来，希望同学们的板砖大力拍向我，让我早日走出死胡同。多谢！
人吃猪肉,猪肉有抗生素,所以人间接吃抗生素,从而有病菌,这是第一种,
猪吃抗生素,从而产生病菌,人吃猪肉,传染了病菌,这是第二种,我猜本文是第二种
人吃了有抗生素的肉得病，谁会管药厂啊？第一个找的就是卖猪肉的
所以就是 DERIVE FROM
和rosemraine的想法一样了我
我还有个BT的想法
A说动物吃了抗生素，没错是吃了
但要是动物压根没有会被抗生影响的细菌呢？
那不是吃了也白吃？
首先得说明动物里有细菌－－－吃抗生素－－－抗药性细菌－人吃－－得病吧
A似乎也不完美啊：）
我也觉得奇怪，支持楼上的，OG会不会也错呢
再做一遍就发现正确答案是A了
人吃猪肉,猪肉有抗生素,所以人间接吃抗生素,从而有病菌,这是第一种,
猪吃抗生素,从而产生病菌,人吃猪肉,传染了病菌,这是第二种,我猜本文是第二种
嗯 有理~
我的疑问是A的后半句，so 与原文没关啊。我觉得A强调的是因为什么才给动物吃抗生素。
这题出的不好，OG11 已经给删了。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |