Critical Reasoning

The ancient Nubians inhabited an area in which typhus occurred, yet surprisingly few of their skeletons show the usual evidence of this disease. The skeletons do show deposits of tetracycline, an antibiotic produced by a bacterium common in Nubian soil. This bacterium can flourish on the dried grain used for making two staples of the Nubian diet, beer and bread. Thus, tetracycline in their food probably explains the low incidence of typhus among ancient Nubians.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
A. The tetracycline deposits did not form after the bodies were buried.
B. The diseases other than typhus to which the ancient Nubians were exposed would not be affected by tetracycline.
C. Typhus is generally fatal.
D. Nubian grain became contaminated with tetracycline-producing bacteria prior to being harvested.
E. Bread and beer were the only foods eaten by the ancient Nubians which could have contained tetracycline.

IMO A. If tetracycline deposits formed after the bodies were buried, then tetracycline from food is not the reason for the low incidence of typhus.

Agree with pandey's explanation. A should be the answer.

A for me too...

if tetracycline can be formed after the bodies are buried..
then food may not be the source of tetracycline...

IMO A...

gmatmachoman wrote:IMO A...

Yes let it be A.

Situation: Typhus refers to a group of infectious diseases that are caused by rickettsial organisms and that result in an acute febrile. Tough Nubians inhabited in area where typhus was common, they were not affected from the disease, as per skelton examination. Since some antibotic has been found on their body, it is plausible to assume because of this antibodies they were not affected by typhus diseases.

If the antibodies were deposited after their death then it doesn't make the argument valid, so this should be the assumption. Done A

In my opinion A is the most logical one.