DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

lheiannie07 wrote:Nanotechnology may pose risks in the coming decades as we find it increasingly commonplace to introduce small robots into our bodies. But the fact that these robots might be invisible to the naked eye doesn't mean we are helpless against them. After all, since the initial development of germ theory, we have designed and continuously improved upon way to protect ourselves from a variety of germs.

In the passage, the author develops the argument by:

a) forming the hypothesis that best explains several apparently conflicting pieces of evidence
b) reinterpreting evidence that had been used to support an earlier theory
c) using an analogy with a known phenomenon to draw a conclusion about an unknown phenomenon.
d) speculating about how characteristics of small robots in the future might develop from characteristics of germs
e) pointing out difference between natural and human made microscopic threats

Can some experts explain how to determine the best Option?

OA C

The argument boiled down: Tiny robots might be scary because we can't see them. But we can't see germs, and we've been able to deal with the threat germs pose.

So we have this scary unknown thing: tiny robots; But we shouldn't be frightened because of how well we've dealt with a known thing: germs. Best captured in C