RC - Tone / Attitude of author

[karthikpandian19]

Products containing antimicrobials are often touted as cleansers and can be found in the antibacterial soaps and solutions used in schools and places of business; they are also crucial ingredients in the antibiotic medications relentlessly prescribed by medical professionals. Concerned scientists, however, have begun to lobby for improved regulations governing the use of these antimicrobials in medicines and cleaning products, arguing that inappropriate reliance on these compounds has contributed to the emergence of strains of drug- and chemical-resistant bacteria. Still, many school and hospital administrators continue to stress the importance of protecting students and patients from bacterial infection. They refer to studies that suggest that antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products are, in fact, not influential in the development of resistant bacteria and are essential for protection against illness-causing microorganisms.

Much of the debate over antimicrobial use has centered on Triclosan, the primary active ingredient in many antibacterial products. Triclosan's ability to control bacterial contamination by targeting the fatty acid synthesis of bacterial cells has made it an attractive addition to cleaning products. The effectiveness of Triclosan as an antibiotic is not a point of dispute; the real controversy involves the potential negative consequences of excessive use of such products. A chief concern for scientists is that over-use of Triclosan will aid in the development of highly resistant strains of bacteria, as has already been observed in the case of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Supporters of extensive antimicrobial use, meanwhile, deny the existence of evidence that links Triclosan to the development of such "supergerms."

Convincing arguments against Triclosan proliferate: the compound has begun to appear in community water supplies, human breast milk, oceans and decade-old sewage. Scientists worry about the long-term ramifications of Triclosan ingestion, particularly because treatment plants have not yet been able to guard against Triclosan contamination in water sources. The most significant support for this cautionary stance comes from a study conducted at the University of Public Health, where it was found that plain soaps--those that lack antimicrobial agents--remove the threat of bacteria just as effectively as the consumer-grade antibacterial varieties. Furthermore, these studies report that using plain soaps allows non-illness-causing bacteria on skin and other surfaces to successfully compete and protect against those bacteria that do cause illness.

Which of the following best describes the tone of the passage?


(A) Inflexible contention

(B) Confident reassurance

(C) Reluctant acknowledgment

(D) Ardent skepticism

(E) Cautious scrutiny

[Birottam Dutta]

Esssentially throughout this passage, the author makes a point that the anti-microbials are not good and pretty much sticks to it throughout the passage.

hence, I would go with inflexible contention.

All others seem out of context.

Hence. A!

[karthikpandian19]

OA is E

[karthikpandian19]

The tone of the passage can be determined by focusing on specific adjectives and adverbs the author uses or on the conclusion(s) the author comes to throughout the course of the passage.

For this passage, it is significant that the author starts the final paragraph by referring to the arguments against Triclosan as convincing. Furthermore, it is the potential negative consequences of using Triclosan that the author spends most of the passage discussing. He mentions this as being the chief concern of scientists and sites evidence to support this cautionary stance.

Choice E is correct. The author is clearly cautious and finds arguments against the overuse of Triclosan convincing. Furthermore, he spends the majority of the passage discussing studies opposing this overuse and much less time on arguments in favor of its use. Therefore, the reader can infer that that author is scrutinizing the use of Triclosan.

Choice A is too extreme. Although one could argue that the author is being contentious, since he is inclined to disagree with the commonly accepted view of antimicrobial products as effective cleaners, this would be an extreme description of the approach used in this passage. Furthermore, there is no indication that his approach is inflexible. Both sides of the argument are discussed, though the evidence provided does support one side more than the other.

Choice B is almost the opposite of the tone used in this passage. The author is not confident about either stance on the use of Triclosan (although he is convinced more by one of them). Furthermore, discussing the dangers of using this chemical does not indicate a tone of "reassurance."

Choice C is partially true, since the author acknowledges the convincing arguments against Triclosan. However his acknowledgment is not reluctant, which would imply unwillingness.

Choice D could be an appealing answer choice since the author is skeptic of antimicrobial products. However, his stance is not ardent, or intense, and it is not clear whether this answer choice refers to the author being ardently skeptical of the argument for Triclosan or against it.