This is a weaken question. The author concludes that the risks of elective surgery had been incurred unnecessarily often in the area because instituting a five-week moratorium on elective surgeries resulted in substantially lower mortality.
(A) is the right answer choice because it attacks the assertion that the risks were incurred unnecessarily. It demonstrates that these elective surgeries would have become necessary and more riskier with time, thus elective surgeries were justified rather than unnecessary.
(C) is wrong because it has no impact on the validity of the conclusion. The conclusion concerns elective surgeries, not the rate of surgeries in general;
(E) is wrong because it has no impact on the validity of the conclusion. It simply provides additional information that there are risks associated with any surgery, rather than differentiates between elective and emergency surgeries in the time period in question.
Does this make sense? Let me know if you have any other questions.
ClaudiaSierraMay 5, 2020
I get why the answer is A, but doesn't E weaken the conclusion by showing that because the elective surgeries couldn't have caused the deaths because they were successful and provides an alternative reason being the bacteria?
