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, if true, would most strengthen the newer account's claim that some gut bacteria actively bias their host's cravings?

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

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

B

The newer account's central claim is causal: some gut bacteria do not merely tolerate the host's food choices but actively bias them, nudging the host to crave the nutrients on which those bacteria depend, by releasing short-chain fatty acids that reach the brain regions registering fullness. The passage names its own weak point: 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, and the account still lacks a clean demonstration that interrupting the fatty-acid signal blunts the craving it is supposed to produce.

Choice (B) supplies exactly that missing demonstration: blocking the fatty-acid signal measurably reduces the craving. This shows the signal is necessary to the craving, which rules out the responding-not-driving alternative and most directly supports the causal claim.

(A) is irrelevant, connecting total bacterial mass to overall food quantity rather than to the direction of influence over specific cravings. (C) weakens by supporting the responding-to-diet alternative, since the bacterial increase follows the diet change. (D) weakens, since cravings that persist without any bacteria show the bacteria are not their source. (E) restates the older one-directional view that the newer account rejects, supporting the opposing position rather than the central argument.