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 best describes the author's attitude toward the manipulation hypothesis (the newer account that some gut bacteria actively bias the host's appetite)?

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

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

B

Question type: author-attitude / tone. The task is to capture the author's stance toward the newer 'manipulation hypothesis,' matching both its direction (favorable vs. unfavorable) and its strength (committed vs. qualified).

The stance is built in the third paragraph and has two components that must both be honored. First, the author leans in favor: 'What the newer account has going for it is a plausible signaling pathway and a consistent direction of effect across several species.' Crediting a hypothesis with what it 'has going for it' is favorable framing. Second, that favor is explicitly held back from full endorsement: 'The evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive,' 'a correlation ... does not by itself establish that the bacteria are driving the appetite,' 'what it still lacks is a clean demonstration,' and the closing verdict, 'best regarded as probably correct but not yet proven.' The words 'probably' and 'not yet proven' fix the confidence level: a lean toward correctness, stopping short of belief.

(B) 'Qualified favor tempered by the absence of proof' captures both components: the favorable tilt ('favor') and the proof-pending reservation ('tempered by the absence of proof'). It matches 'probably correct but not yet proven' directly.

Why the others fail on valence or strength: (A) 'detached neutrality' erases the favorable tilt the author states with 'what the newer account has going for it.' (C) 'settled conviction' over-reads the lean as certainty, contradicting 'probably' and 'not yet proven.' (D) 'pointed skepticism' and (E) 'open dismissal' flip the valence to the unfavorable side, but the author calls the mechanism 'plausible' and the hypothesis 'probably correct,' which is support, not skepticism or dismissal. The concessive markers ('rather than conclusive,' 'does not by itself establish,' 'but not yet proven') limit the author's certainty; they never reverse the favorable direction.