Assumption Question - Nubians

Is it B?

Please explain

Haaress wrote:Is it B?

IMO B

Apply Negation to option B.

Tetracycline is rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer.

If tetracycline is made ineffective thru the baking and food process,then how come only few people affected by typhus?This weakens the argument.Hence B is correct..

OA?

B is the OA

My pick is B

time: 01:51

I chose B through process of elimination:

Conclusion: Tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.


A. Infectious diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed are unaffected by tetracycline.

Outisde of scope


C. Typhus cannot be transmitted by ingesting bread or beer contaminated with the infectious agents of this disease.
The argument isn't about how typhus is transmitted, so this was eliminated.

D. Bread and beer were the only items in the diet of the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.
It doesn't matter if there were other items that contained tetracycline. If there are other items, it doesn't effect the conclusion.

E. Typhus is generally fatal.
While this may be true, the passage doesn't talk about mortality rates. It just mentions evidence of the disease on the skeletons.

So I was left with B and it made the most sense:

B. Tetracycline is not rendered ineffective as an antibiotic by exposure to the processes involved in making bread and beer.

We know that tetracycline is an antibiotic. We know that it is present on dried grain. But the passage doesn't talk about the effects of using that grain in making bread or beer. So in order to accept the conclusion we are assuming that the antibiotic remains potent after processing.