AI InterviewSearch…Search problems, topics, or pages…Ctrl KGet started
Hardinference

~105s

An inference about policy

Antibiotic resistance is not a future risk but a present one. Every course of antibiotics kills the susceptible bacteria and leaves the resistant to multiply, so resistance is the predictable result of use rather than of misuse alone. Misuse merely accelerates it. This is why the response has two halves that are often confused: using existing drugs more sparingly buys time, but only new classes of drug can replace what is being lost.

Which statement follows from the passage?

Show the answer and the worked solution

Correct answer: A.

Reducing prescriptions alone will not permanently solve resistance.

Worked solution

  1. The passage says sparing use only buys time, while replacement requires new classes of drug.
  2. So reducing prescriptions alone cannot be a permanent solution — the first option.
  3. The passage says misuse accelerates resistance, so the second is wrong, and the other two overreach.

Answer: Reducing prescriptions alone will not permanently solve resistance.

The idea

Pay attention to hedged phrases such as 'buys time'. They mark the limits of a claim, and questions are often built on exactly those limits.

Shortcut. The last sentence makes both responses necessary: sparing use only delays, and only new drugs replace. An option that makes either one enough breaks the passage; the answer keeps sparing use insufficient on its own.

Common trap. "New antibiotics would make careful prescribing unnecessary." — the passage does say only new drugs can replace what is lost, but resistance follows from any use, so new drugs would be worn down too.

Reading Comprehension

17 of 28

Level

Hard

Target time

~105s

PreviousNext
AI InterviewGet started

An inference about policy — Aptitude Question

An inference about policy: Antibiotic resistance is not a future risk but a present one. Answer and worked solution on CodeKairo.

Question

Antibiotic resistance is not a future risk but a present one. Every course of antibiotics kills the susceptible bacteria and leaves the resistant to multiply, so resistance is the predictable result of use rather than of misuse alone. Misuse merely accelerates it. This is why the response has two halves that are often confused: using existing drugs more sparingly buys time, but only new classes of drug can replace what is being lost.

Which statement follows from the passage?

Options

  1. Reducing prescriptions alone will not permanently solve resistance.
  2. Misuse plays no part in resistance.
  3. New antibiotics would make careful prescribing unnecessary.
  4. Resistance can be eliminated within a decade.
Show the answer and the worked solution

Correct answer: A. Reducing prescriptions alone will not permanently solve resistance.

Worked solution

  1. The passage says sparing use only buys time, while replacement requires new classes of drug.
  2. So reducing prescriptions alone cannot be a permanent solution — the first option.
  3. The passage says misuse accelerates resistance, so the second is wrong, and the other two overreach.

Answer: Reducing prescriptions alone will not permanently solve resistance.

The idea

Pay attention to hedged phrases such as 'buys time'. They mark the limits of a claim, and questions are often built on exactly those limits.

Shortcut. The last sentence makes both responses necessary: sparing use only delays, and only new drugs replace. An option that makes either one enough breaks the passage; the answer keeps sparing use insufficient on its own.

Common trap. "New antibiotics would make careful prescribing unnecessary." — the passage does say only new drugs can replace what is lost, but resistance follows from any use, so new drugs would be worn down too.

All Reading Comprehension questions · placement mock tests