Lets paraphrase what is intended by the author

There are some medicinal substances, which if taken in a considerable amount can be harmful, but since these substances are present in a very small, amount so they are safe.

Despite the above mention fact, the author says eliminating these substances will be beneficial for the public. So there has to be a reason why removing these substances is beneficial.

Clearly E gives out the reason.

Hope this Helps

IMO E as well.

Reasoning similar to above.

i have been committing mistakes in 'best complete the passage' type.

any TAKEAWAYS what i should watch out for when attacking this CR type.

Well I don't have any particular strategy for attacking a CR Question, but I would like to discuss my strategy for this one.

You should always be on a look-out for transition words, in this case it was "nevertheless". They decide the direction in which the argument proceeds.

Hope this Helps

hey,thanks.

i am looking for particularly this CR type - 'best complete the passage'.

gmat740 wrote:Well I don't have any particular strategy for attacking a CR Question, but I would like to discuss my strategy for this one.

You should always be on a look-out for transition words, in this case it was "nevertheless". They decide the direction in which the argument proceeds.

Hope this Helps

aj5105 wrote:i have been committing mistakes in 'best complete the passage' type.

any TAKEAWAYS what i should watch out for when attacking this CR type.

Anything with a "fill in the blank" is a main point question or an assumption question.

If they are asking for a main point, the conclusion is missing. You have to incorporate ALL premises to complete your conclusion. Also, you should be able to fact check it with the stimulus provided. Any extraneous information is almost always wrong.

If they are asking for an assumption, they are asking you to give a premise. In the stimulus, they have provided a conclusion and maybe a premise. For this type, extraneous information is acceptable, since you are providing some information that might fill the gap b/w a conclusion and another premise.

This particular example has a premise indicator, so it is an assumption question.

The conclusion is that medical experts argue for the elimination of trace amounts from the water.

premise 1: Researchers have found trace amounts of medicinal substances.
premise 2: Taken in Large quantities, they provide a threat to mankind.
premise 3: However, quantities are present in extremely low levels to provide a significant threat.

Here, to answer, you should ask yourself "why are the researchers arguing FOR the removal when the trace elements don't pose a grave threat?"

The gap here must incorporate some new information which would support the researchers claims that the trace elements must be removed.

By incorporating E, bacterial resistance would provide a significant reason for them to eliminate the trace elements since they could prove to be a grave risk to people with health issues. (preferably the ones who are on the same medications as the ones found in the water...which means the medicine will not be effective for them)

hope all that made sense.

thanks smiles.

its E u bozos :twisted:

aj5105 wrote:i have been committing mistakes in 'best complete the passage' type.

any TAKEAWAYS what i should watch out for when attacking this CR type.

Two tips from me:

1. Read the passage and form a mental structure - what i mean is read as though you are reading a story. Such an active reading would help you to frame the passage and you would clearly know what to look for in the answer. Take the above passage: When you read it like a real life issue, by the time you reach the last sentence you'd know that you are looking for some reason why the experts think that even though the medicinal substances are harmless, its better to eliminate. So you are basically looking for a statement that will tell you a situation where the substances can actually cause some harm!! And when you read choice E, you will instantly jump on it.

2. Do not assume anything or speculate any other form reasoning. If you were a medical scientist and were reading the above passage you would tend to speculate the reasons. Never do that. There are some sentences which are purely meant to trap the people in that profession.

guys just wanted to know why b is wrong .. doesn't it say that some substances nullify the harmful effects of other substances . thus we can say that the actual harmful effect of these substances is much greater than measured ... hence the scientists have asked for their removal....

I still feel B should be the answer

I'd say B