Statement I — A very large number of people were forced to wade through knee-deep water for long distances as the transport system failed due to water-logging.\n\nConclusion — The Government has instructed all the leading drug manufacturers in the country to release additional quantities of antibiotics in the retail market.\n\nCandidate Statement II options —\nA) A negligible number of people were found to be suffering from diseases caused by contact with contaminated water.\nB) People having cuts or wounds who travelled through contaminated water are very likely to fall sick immediately after exposure.\nC) Local doctors have advised their patients to refrain from taking antibiotics without checking with qualified medical practitioners.

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: Only B

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
This is a Statement–and–Conclusion question with “supporting Statement II” variants. Statement I describes mass exposure to contaminated flood water owing to transport failure. The Conclusion says the Government directed drug manufacturers to release extra antibiotics. We must decide which candidate Statement II (A/B/C) most logically strengthens the Conclusion.



Given Data / Assumptions:


  • Mass wading through knee-deep water implies high probability of exposure to pathogens.
  • Conclusion focuses on antibiotics availability in retail markets (supply-side surge measure).
  • We assume the Government’s move should be justified by heightened infection risk that commonly warrants antibiotic therapy (as per medical advice).


Concept / Approach:
In such problems, the correct supporting statement should (i) connect exposure to likely infections treatable by antibiotics and (ii) indicate a scale/urgency consistent with releasing additional stocks. Statements that downplay risk or argue against antibiotic use would not support the Conclusion.



Step-by-Step Solution:


Evaluate A: “A negligible number of people were found to be suffering…” — This weakens need; negligible incidence contradicts scaling up antibiotic supply.Evaluate B: “People with cuts/wounds who travelled through contaminated water are very likely to fall sick immediately after exposure.” — This directly links exposure to heightened infection risk (especially for open wounds) and thus supports proactive antibiotic availability.Evaluate C: “Local doctors advise patients to refrain from taking antibiotics without checking with qualified practitioners.” — This is a caution against indiscriminate use; it neither increases nor validates the need to release extra quantities (supply). At best, it is orthogonal; at worst, it cautions restraint.


Verification / Alternative check:
B uniquely provides a medical-risk rationale consistent with the Government’s action. A contradicts the need; C addresses usage practice rather than supply justification.



Why Other Options Are Wrong:


Only A: contradicts the scale/risk premise.Only C: focuses on prescription prudence, not supply-side need.None of these / Only A and B: do not match the single strongest, non-contradictory support.


Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “antibiotic stewardship” messages (C) with “public health stock readiness.” Both can coexist, but C does not support the supply surge.



Final Answer:
Only B

More Questions from Statement and Conclusion

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion