The milk of many mammals contains cannabinoids, substances that are known to stimulate certain receptors in the brain. To investigate the function of cannabinoids, researchers injected newborn mice with a chemical that is known to block cannabinoids from reaching their receptors in the brain. The injected mice showed far less interest in feeding than normal newborn mice do. Therefore, cannabinoids probably function to stimulate the appetite.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
B points out CB are the only substances to stimulate the appetide. If B is not true, that is, there are other substances can stimulate the appetide. The conclusion is still validate as long as CB can stimulate the appetide. So B is not correct.
E is the answer for it rule out other reason cause the result of the experiment.
B points out CB are the only substances to stimulate the appetide. If B is not true, that is, there are other substances can stimulate the appetide. The conclusion is still validate as long as CB can stimulate the appetide. So B is not correct.
E is the answer for it rule out other reason cause the result of the experiment.
I agree with what you said about B. But if you are right with E, the answer, i think, should read like this "The chemical ......does not dependently inhibit th appetite, or The chemical .. indepently .... please reply this, thanks.
But if mothers encourage babies to feed, we could reach the conlcusion that the encouragement, rather than cannabinoids, stimulates the feeding. This conclusion weakens the argument, doesn't it?