IMO D..coz the conclusion states: "tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubian"

the only assumption here could be that the food comprises of beer and bread and nothing else....

OA please?

IMO B is the answer. typhus is common in the area where Nubian lived, however they used the tetracycline in beer and bread which is not effective to control typhus.

Good explanation by Santosh.

B should be OA, I have seen this question elsewhere.

I think nauman pointed the correct answer but wrong conclusion... that
tetracycline is not effective in controlling the typhus, if that the case the answer is not (B)


here is my explanation....

Conclusion:

tetracycline in their food was effective in controlling the typhus.

Premise:

It states that tetracycline flourish on the dried grain unites the beer and bread which is the nubian diet.


(B) indicates that tetracycline is effective as an antibiotic in controlling the typhus as it is contained in the nubian diet which is the bread and beer.

(B) is definitely the correct answer.

An assumption is something that the author is taking for granted as being true. In other words, an assumption is a missing but necessary link between the evidence and the conclusion.

Therefore, the correct answer to an assumption question is something that MUST BE TRUE in order for the argument to make sense.

To summarize the argument:

Evidence:

Nubians don't seem to have had typhus; and
The grain that Nubians used in their bread contains an antibiotic.

Conclusion:

The antibiotic is responsible for the lack of Typhus.

Let's look at (B):

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

Does this have to be true for the conclusion to make sense? Definitely!

A great way to check answer choices for assumption/strengthening/weakening questions is to use Kaplan's denial test. We look at the opposite of a choice and see what impact it has on the argument.

In this case, let's consider how persuasive the conclusion would be if (B) were NOT true:

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

Well, if the brewing/baking process renders Tetracycline ineffective, then how could it possibly have been keeping the Nubians typhus-free?

Since the denial of (B) renders the argument nonsensical, (B) itself must be true for the argument to make sense.

i think answer B is better