Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.

Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.

Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?

(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.

(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┬иCeven if they died for some other reason.

(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.

(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.

(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.

B also. Asandeep, you're always a step ahead of me. still working on the explanation...
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Alright folks I timedout expecting a suitable reply from you. Here is what I think. Bye the way I chose D.

Thomas thinks that those people who survived because of the change in the diet would have died otherwise and thus does not consider them to be part of the population over next 10 years. Thus if they are saved then those are the extra people contributing to the population by 50000 over 10 years.
All the answers except B are rediculous. D comes closest but is out of the scope. Then again I have the moral support of Geethu.

I just tought Thomas misunderstood Leona's statement and Leona clarified it later using the statement in B