In response to high mortality in area hospitals, surgery was restricted to emergency procedures during a five-week pe...
Jessica-BerrymanJuly 8, 2020
Why not C?
I picked C because I thought that if there were was an unusually high amount of elective surgeries in the given area before the five-week period compared to normal, then this would help to explain why the mortality rate was higher and thereby dismiss the idea that elective surgeries - in general - are causing the morality rate to increase. More cases than normal = more possible deaths to occur during surgery.
Could you explain where my reasoning went wrong?
Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This second comment is just an add-on to my question above--
The conclusion: "It can be concluded that, before the five-week period, the risks of elective surgery had been incurred unnecessarily often in the area."
To me, C provides a counter explanation by providing that it may not have been the actual risks of the surgery causing high mortality rates, but it was rather that there was an unusually high number of elective surgeries taking place before the five-week period, and the possibility of error would naturally follow.
shunheJuly 8, 2020
Hi @Jessica-Berryman,
Thanks for the question! So take a careful look at what (C) is telling us. It tells us that before elective surgery was suspended, surgical operations were performed in area hospitals at a higher rate per 1000 residents of the area than was usual elsewhere. What is this answer choice about? It’s about surgical procedures in general; it’s not limited to just talking about elective procedures. So (C) is out of scope and can’t weaken the conclusion, since it doesn’t focus on elective procedures and talks about surgical procedures in general. And we want to know something about elective surgery here.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
