Useful protein drugs, such as insulin, must still be administered by the cumbersome procedure of injection under the skin. If proteins are taken orally, they are digested and cannot reach their target cells. Certain nonprotein drugs, however, contain chemical bonds that are not broken down by the digestive system. They can, thus, be taken orally.
The statements above most strongly support a claim that a research procedure that successfully accomplishes which of the following would be beneficial to users of protein drugs?
(A) Coating insulin with compounds that are broken down by target cells, but whose chemical bonds are resistant to digestion
(B) Converting into protein compounds, by procedures that work in the laboratory, the nonprotein drugs that resist digestion
(C) Removing permanently from the digestive system any substances that digest proteins
(D) Determining, in a systematic way, what enzymes and bacteria are present in the normal digestive system and whether they tend to be broken down within the body
(E) Determining the amount of time each nonprotein drug takes to reach its target cells
Can someone please explain me what's wrong with
C
: I understand it can have some other consequences but those consequences are not part of the argument. As far as we are removing the element which is causing digestion, we should be good?? On the other side
A
focuses on correct approach but targets only insulin - not all protein drugs. Don't you agree that
C
is stronger candidate than
A
By the way this is OG question. OA:
A
Another Question:
Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.
　　Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends？
　　（A） Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.
　　（B） There is no fuel other than methanol that is cleaner-burning than both diesel fuel and gasoline.
　　（C） If given a choice of automobile fuels, automobile owners would not select gasoline over methanol.
　　（D） Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.
　　（E） At any given time there is a direct correlation between the level of urban air pollution and the level of contamination present in the global atmosphere.
OA to follow.
The statements above most strongly support a claim that a research procedure that successfully accomplishes which of the following would be beneficial to users of protein drugs?
(A) Coating insulin with compounds that are broken down by target cells, but whose chemical bonds are resistant to digestion
(B) Converting into protein compounds, by procedures that work in the laboratory, the nonprotein drugs that resist digestion
(C) Removing permanently from the digestive system any substances that digest proteins
(D) Determining, in a systematic way, what enzymes and bacteria are present in the normal digestive system and whether they tend to be broken down within the body
(E) Determining the amount of time each nonprotein drug takes to reach its target cells
Can someone please explain me what's wrong with
C
: I understand it can have some other consequences but those consequences are not part of the argument. As far as we are removing the element which is causing digestion, we should be good?? On the other side
A
focuses on correct approach but targets only insulin - not all protein drugs. Don't you agree that
C
is stronger candidate than
A
By the way this is OG question. OA:
A
Another Question:
Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.
　　Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends？
　　（A） Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.
　　（B） There is no fuel other than methanol that is cleaner-burning than both diesel fuel and gasoline.
　　（C） If given a choice of automobile fuels, automobile owners would not select gasoline over methanol.
　　（D） Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.
　　（E） At any given time there is a direct correlation between the level of urban air pollution and the level of contamination present in the global atmosphere.
OA to follow.
