The reasoning is valid because the author logically explains how resistant bacteria formed from giving livestock antibiotics can make its way into humans.
In the second to last paragraph, the author claims that the routine use of antibiotics in agriculture needs to be reevaluted.
Which statement best evaluates the validity of the reasoning the author uses to support this claim?
Responses
The reasoning is invalid because it is circular; the author essentially states that using antibiotics in agriculture is harmful because doing so is harmful.
The reasoning is invalid because it is circular; the author essentially states that using antibiotics in agriculture is harmful because doing so is harmful.
The reasoning is invalid because the author uses rhetorical questioning that actually refutes the claim that the use of antibiotics in farming is a problem.
The reasoning is invalid because the author uses rhetorical questioning that actually refutes the claim that the use of antibiotics in farming is a problem.
The reasoning is valid because the author logically explains how resistant bacteria formed from giving livestock antibiotics can make its way into humans.
The reasoning is valid because the author logically explains how resistant bacteria formed from giving livestock antibiotics can make its way into humans.
The reasoning is valid because the author cites credible sources to support the idea that giving livestock antibiotics can lead to the formation of superbugs.
1 answer