- Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:52 pm
#99112
We don't know they are riskier, ikim, just that there was some risk. The fact that the overall rate number of deaths dropped during the period the elective surgeries were suspended indicates that there was some risk for those surgeries. However, it doesn't indicate if elective surgeries are riskier than emergency surgeries. It doesn't draw a comparison between the two. The comparison is between the time that there were elective surgeries and the time those surgeries were suspended. Thus the author concludes that the risk from those surgeries was unnecessary because, during the five weeks, the number of deaths dropped.
Answer choice (A) weakens this argument by showing why elective surgeries are actually a necessary risk. If eventually, the condition could become life-threatening, and the surgery would be riskier then, it would mean that a longer-term suspension of elective surgeries would not have the same effect on the mortality numbers. This answer choice shows the limitations of the experiment in the study by showing that we wouldn't expect it to continue to have the same impact over time.
This question plays on people's understanding of the word "elective." It feels optional, and like a choice someone makes. However, even as defined in the stimulus, elective surgeries aren't unnecessary. They are just able to be postponed. Not eliminated, but postponed. The wording though can make it easy for people to make assumptions or even mentally just think about those surgeries as optional. The incorrect answer choices exploit this idea in highlighting the various sorts of risks potentially present in surgeries.
