Bacterial infections, such as those caused by certain strains of E. coli, can be transmitted from animals to humans through contaminated food. Although the outbreak of E. coli infections in North America likely originated from specific livestock in the Midwest, the farmers in that region did not report any cases of infection. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that these farmers possess some form of immunity to E. coli.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Certain strains of E. coli can be transmitted directly between humans without any animal contact.

Correct

The livestock that were infected with E. coli were not present on the farms of the unaffected farmers.

Farmers in the Midwest often consume food products that are processed from infected livestock.

E. coli bacteria can survive in the environment for long periods, making it possible for farmers to be exposed without becoming infected.

The farmers in the Midwest have a diet that includes a high amount of probiotics, which may enhance their immune response.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument suggests that the farmers' lack of infection implies they have immunity to E. coli. However, if certain strains of E. coli can be transmitted directly between humans without any animal contact, this weakens the argument significantly.…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

AnkitApr 21, 2025

Great

TempJan 2, 2025

this helped me

LEVIATHANApr 22, 2024

thanks for taking time to upload it!

PrathamApr 25, 2025

Thank for sharing!!!

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.