Bacteria that benefit human beings when they are present in the body are called commensals. The bacterium Helicobacte...

MACZ on December 23, 2019

I saw the last post but I was hoping for some clarification as to why C would be the right answer. The way I am reading it, I see it strengthening the arguement not weakening it.

Since "Bacteria that benefit human beings when they are present in the body are called commensals," then wouldn't C strengthen the arguement by saying that M. tuberculosis doesn't provide a benefit for people that harbor it. The conclusion is that it isn't a commensal. If the author argued that it was a commensal then this would weaken it but he doesn't. If I were to weaken the arguement wouldn't I want to prove that it is a commensal? Let me know if I am way off base here, thanks!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Annie on December 24, 2019


This question asks you to find the answer choice which undermines the argument's reasoning. Here's a breakdown of the argument:

Premise: Good bacteria are called commensals.
Premise: The bacterium HP is involved in stomach ulcers but those only happen in 10% of people with HP bacteria.
Premise: HP bacteria also allegedly strengthens immune response, so it's a commensal.
Conclusion: This is wrong because only about 10% of people with MT get tuberculosis, but that doesn't make it a commensal.

As you can see the argument is trying to draw a parallel between HP and MT so show that the classification of HP as a commensal is wrong. You're trying to undermine the argument, and a good way to do it is to undermine this parallel.

Answer (C) is correct because it does just that. Premise 3 tells us that HP helps strengthen immune response, while this answer tells us that MT does not have this affect. This difference drives a wedge in the parallel, and thus weakens the argument.