Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be sa...
Mikhail1710June 29, 2024
Hi why is the answer, Option B?
Hi why is the answer, Option B?
Option B: It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do—so even if they died for some other reason.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
L claims that her idea could save 5000 lives a year. T finds this implausible as it would mean that the population in that counterfactual would be 50000 higher in ten years.
The question asks us how L would best respond.
B undermines the idea that t finds implausible. Saving 5000 per year does not actually mean that the population would be 50,000 higher after ten years, because a good chunk of them would have dies of other causes during that period. Thus, the implication that T finds implausible is actually not as large as she thought.
