<p>This is a sent. completion question from an old PSAT: </p>
<p>Citing evidence that babies shielded from harmful microbes during infancy may be ------- developing allergies as adults, the scientist claimed that excessive hygiene is -----. </p>
<p>A. prone to… deleterious
B. exempt from … immaterial
C. resistant to … obsolete
D. protected from … perilious
E. predisposed to … therapeutic</p>
<p>Can someone help? thanks.</p>
<p>The answer is (A). If babies are kept from germs, their bodies might not develop natural defenses, and they are more prone (susceptible) to allergies (reactions to foreign substances) - therefore “excessive hygiene” or cleanliness can be deleterious, or harmful.</p>
<p>Agreed with Smallworld. For the first part of the sentence, ask your self “who is developing allergies as adults? why?”, the asnwer is clearly the babies who are “shielded from harmful microbes”. But wait, doesn’t protection from microbes be beneficial for the babies health? why would it induce allergy? The postie/negative dilemma is resolved once you see the word “excessive”. Anything excessive isnt good, so the baby must be PRONE to developing allergies because shielding it away from microbes is excessive. We know that deleterious means injurious so that fits rights with the context of the sentence.
Hope that helped clear any ambiguities.</p>
<p>thanks you guys…</p>
<p>it was the “excessive”’ part that got me… I got really confused why hygiene would be harmful… but now I get it</p>
<p>Hmm kind of confusing. I can see why you where having a bit of trouble.</p>