#17 - A society's infant mortality rate is an accepted

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (C)

The stimulus explains that infant mortality is an acceptable indicator of a society's general health status. The stimulus then reports that in some US localities, the mortality rate is higher than in many developing countries, but the overall US rate is declining. The stimulus then cautions (concludes) that US babies are not necessarily healthier on average than they were before.

The cautionary conclusion is not illogical, because it simply reserves judgment. You are asked to support the cautionary conclusion, and generally when you reserve judgment despite having some evidence, it is because you know there may be other factors. The correct response should bring in another factor relevant to infant mortality and infant health.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus already infers that average US figures mask local deficiencies, and restating the stimulus will not improve it. Furthermore, you are supposed to explain why the average mortality figures do not necessarily indicate anything on average about US infant health; you are not supposed to explain why a few localities may not experience improving health.

Answer choice (B): This response discusses what might cause much infant mortality, but you are supposed to explain why a decreasing mortality rate does not necessarily indicate increasing health.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct choice. It is likely that the usual connection between infant mortality and health is taken to be causal. If in the US technology saves a great many unhealthy babies that would otherwise likely die, that challenges the causal connection between health and mortality when in the US, explaining why decreasing US mortality rates do not necessarily stem from, and therefore do not necessarily indicate, increasing health.

Answer choice (D): The fact that the infant mortality rate decreased in 11 states does not explain why generally lower infant mortality rates do not necessarily indicate better health.

Answer choice (E): This incorrect choice explains that infant mortality is not the only cause of infant health, but the stimulus more likely requires support for the idea that infant health is not the only cause of infant mortality. Furthermore, this choice states that if babies do not receive proper care, they will not thrive. Since neither the stimulus nor this choice rules out that the infants receive the proper care, this choice does not explain why health does not improve.

[biskam]

Here I want to be sure the order of the causal connection... are you saying it's IMF --> health or health --> IMF. I interpret the stimulus as saying the latter.

Thank you!

[biskam]

Here I want to be sure the order of the causal connection... are you saying it's IMF --> health or health --> IMF. I interpret the stimulus as saying the latter.

Thank you!

I'm getting confused how this is being seen as causal. I see it more as a paradox q, but if it is causal I want to make sure I'm not missing something big.

Here's my thought process: this q is a sort of paradox--if the IMR is declining, why is health not any better? C describes one such situation--we're saving more babies, so declining IMR, but doesn't mean they're necessarily healthier-- we're seeing more are preemies and underweight babies

[nicholaspavic]

Hi biskam,

This is definitely a causal issue with "This decline does not necessarily indicate..." Although this is phrased as a traditional Strengthening question, there is something of a paradox going on with decreasing US mortality rates not necessarily stemming from increasing health. It appears that you got the question correct and may just be concerned with the form of the stimulus and question? Remember that the question of "Which one of the following reasons, if true, most strongly supports the claim made above about the implications of the decline?" is definitely a classical strengthening question which is why we classified it as such.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helped!

[KwakuS]

Hello,

Thanks for all the previous responses. I understand the logic for the answer, which is that saving unhealthy babies does not necessarily mean an increase in health. I don't know if I agree with that though. If a country gets better at saving those who aren't healthy, hasn't its health increased? If that is not an example of increasing health, what would increased health look like for this question?

Thanks,
Kwaku

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be confusing two different ideas here, KwakuS. The claim is not that health is not improving. The claim is that the babies may not necessarily be healthier at birth. That is, they can still be born sick, but be saved and become healthier overall. Thus, the declining rate of infant mortality in the U.S. may not indicate that the babies are born any healthier than previously.

Here's an analogy:

Today, fewer people die from complications due to broken bones than they used to, but that doesn't mean they are breaking fewer bones. It could be that we are just better at treating them and avoiding those complications.

Here's another:

In the past 20 years we have seen a steady increase in how long cars last. The average new car now lasts 3 years longer and 60,000 miles more than cars built at the turn of the century. But that doesn't mean the cars are built better than they once were. It could be that maintenance by owners and servicers has improved.

[mollylynch]

Hi, how can we infer that the average masks local deficiencies? I am still confused as to why A is wrong.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mollylynch!

I'm not sure if I follow the question--perhaps you could embellish on why you see answer choice (A) as strengthening the conclusion?

The conclusion is: "This decline does not necessarily indicate, however, that babies in the United States are now, on the average, healthier at birth than they were in the past." Answer choice (C) explains how the infant mortality rate could be declining in the U.S. without babies necessarily being healthier at birth on average than they were in the past. Namely, if (C) were true, it suggests that this could be because new technology was enabling more premature and low-birth weight babies to be saved. This strengthens the conclusion that the overall decline in infant mortality "does not necessarily indicate ... that babies in the United States are now, on the average, healthier at birth than they were in the past."