The argument concludes that due to a drop in mortality rates during a five-week period where elective surgeries were banned, the risks of elective-surgery before that five-week period had been incurred unnecessarily often in the area. We want to break down the connection between the premise and conclusion. What is the easiest way to do this? To prove somehow that the elective surgeries done before the five-week period were, in fact, necessary.
Answer choice (A) does just this. If it was true that without these elective surgeries, in the long run, not only would the conditions become life-threatening, but the surgeries would become much riskier, then the elective surgeries performed would not be considered to be occurring "unnecessarily often." If (A) were true, then the elective surgeries before the five-week period seem to actually be quite necessary. Therefore, answer choice (A) weakens the argument by breaking apart the premise and conclusion.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
chennini1906August 16, 2018
Hi, I was struggling between A and C for this question, and I ended up picking C because I thought that the higher rate of surgeries in C could have explained the higher than death counts. I can see why A makes sense, but could you also explain why C is incorrect? Thanks
