Question

she took up a scalpel and slit the monkey’s abdomen, making a slow and gentle cut, keeping the blade well away from her gloved fingers. the spleen was puffed up and tough, leathery, like a globe of smoked salami. she did not see any bloody lesions inside this monkey. she had expected that the monkey’s interior lake of blood, but no, this monkey looked all right, it into itself. if the animal had died of ebola, this was n she opened up the intestine. there was no blood in looked okay. then she examined the stomach. the ring of bleeding spots at the junction between the s small intestine. this could be a sign of ebola, but it sign. it could also be a sign of simian fever, not eb she could not confirm the presence of ebola virus in this animal based on a visual inspection of the internal organs during necropsy. which statement best summarizes the central idea of this paragraph? it is difficult to identify ebola in dead

Explanation:

The paragraph describes a necropsy on a monkey to check for Ebola. Most organs looked normal, a possible sign of Ebola (also simian fever) was found, but visual inspection couldn't confirm Ebola. The key is the difficulty in identifying Ebola via necropsy visual checks.

Answer:

It is difficult to identify Ebola in dead (likely "animals" or "monkeys" contextually) via visual necropsy inspection as signs could be ambiguous or from other diseases. (Assuming the option starts with this; if the option is "It is difficult to identify Ebola in dead [animal/monkey] from visual necropsy as signs are ambiguous", that's the answer.)