@B (B) doesn't work because if this statement is true, it does NOT rule out the possibility that some people who do not take penicillin develop bacteria resistant to it.
(E) is incorrect because it is not used to conclusively proved that the explanation must involve reference to genetic makeup.
(C) on the other hand is correct. It is the point that when combined with the fact that some patients who do not take penicillin develop penicillin-resistant bacteria, generates the problem that prompted the research described in the passage.
Hope this helps! And good luck tomorrow!
mgraves5September 20, 2019
What threw me off with C is it included the term research. Nothing in the passage mentions research. Are we to assume that because they're scientist, they are conducting research? Would it not be possible for them to be able to explain why individual's who didn't take penicillin were resistant to it via another method (articles, books, colleagues, etc.) or would utilizing those methods just be considered a broad generalization of "research"?
VictoriaSeptember 22, 2019
Hi @mgraves5,
Overall, if scientists are investigating a problem, we can classify this as research.
However, there are two key parts of this specific passage that suggest that the scientists conducted research. First, we know that the scientists were "puzzled," but now "believe they have found an explanation." This means that there was a step in between where the scientists investigated the problem and developed an explanation. This highly suggests that some form of research, whether primary laboratory research or simply reading articles, was conducted. Second, we know that there is a relevant group of patients. This suggests that there is a broader group of patients being examined as part of a study.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
