VerbalReading Comprehension

Free GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Question

PrepLattice is an independent test-preparation service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by GMAC, the organization that administers the GMAT. GMAT and GMAT Focus are trademarks of GMAC, used here only to name the exam this question is designed to prepare you for.

For decades, the trillions of bacteria that inhabit the mammalian gut were treated as passive lodgers, organisms that simply consumed whatever nutrients their host happened to eat and returned, at most, a few useful byproducts. On this older view, the flow of influence ran in one direction: the host chose its diet, and the bacterial community adjusted to it. The host's appetite was the host's own business, governed by its brain and its hormones, and the resident microbes were spectators to a decision already made.

A newer account reverses part of that arrow. It proposes that some gut bacteria do not merely tolerate the host's food choices but actively bias them, nudging the host to crave the very nutrients on which those bacteria most depend. The proposed mechanism is chemical. As certain bacteria break down particular dietary fibers, they release short-chain fatty acids, small molecules that can enter the host's circulation and reach the brain regions that register fullness. By altering when and how strongly the host feels satisfied, a bacterial population could, in effect, lengthen or shorten the meal that feeds it. In most species examined so far, shifts in the abundance of fiber-fermenting bacteria are accompanied by measurable changes in how much fiber the animal subsequently seeks out.

The evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive, and the better investigators in this area say as much. The correlations are robust, but a correlation between bacterial abundance and host appetite does not by itself establish that the bacteria are driving the appetite rather than responding to it. What the newer account has going for it is a plausible signaling pathway and a consistent direction of effect across several species; what it still lacks is a clean demonstration that interrupting the fatty-acid signal blunts the craving it is supposed to produce. Until such a demonstration arrives, the manipulation hypothesis is best regarded as probably correct but not yet proven.

Which of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?

Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

A

This is a structure question, resolved by the function each paragraph performs, anchored on its topic sentence. Paragraph 1 lays out a long-held view of the host-bacteria relationship: its topic sentence states that for decades gut bacteria were treated as passive lodgers, with influence running one direction (the host chooses its diet, the bacteria adjust).

Paragraph 2 advances a rival account along with its proposed mechanism: its topic sentence, 'A newer account reverses part of that arrow,' introduces the claim that some bacteria actively bias the host's cravings, and the paragraph then describes the chemical mechanism (bacteria release short-chain fatty acids that reach the brain regions registering fullness) and notes the cross-species correlations. Paragraph 3 weighs how well the evidence supports that rival account: its topic sentence, 'The evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive,' opens an assessment that names what the account has (a plausible pathway and a consistent direction of effect) and what it lacks (a clean demonstration that interrupting the fatty-acid signal blunts the craving), closing with the verdict 'probably correct but not yet proven.'

Choice (A) matches all three moves in order. (B) reverses paragraphs 1 and 2 and claims the older view is confirmed by experiment, which the passage denies. (C) says the dispute is resolved in favor of the newer account, but the passage calls the evidence inconclusive and the hypothesis not yet proven. (D) drops the third paragraph's explicit assessment and verdict. (E) inverts the author's favorable, qualified stance into an outright rejection of the newer account.