A society’s infant mortality rate is an accepted indicator of that

C claims that technology has been developed but it is not clear werher this technology has been applied in many hospitals...it could be a clinical esssay not readily available....

+C.
Alternate Reasoning.

If is because of the the technology that the doctors are able to save the babies and this does not mean that the babies are safer from past.
If technology would not have been a factor, the health of kids might be same as in the past.

1) infant mortality rate is an accepted indicator of that society’s general health status.

2) United States overall the rate has been steadily declining.

3)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.

babies in US are not healthier than babies born elsewhere.Yet mortality rate is declining.

Only C correctly explains why mortality rate is declining.
Since US has sophisticated technology for saving premature and low-birth-weight babies,it is able to save many babies and thus reduce mortality rate.

A,D and E are out of scope.
B does not correlate strongly with the argument.
C offers an alternative cause.

Premise:
US infant mortality rate has been steadily declining.

Conclusion:
The decline does not necessarily mean that US babies are healthier at birth

(C) says "babies that are unhealthy at birth are being saved by technology." This strengthens the conclusion above by suggesting that many babies are still unhealthy at birth; they are avoiding death not because of healthy births, but because of technology.

Can someone explain why option A is wrong? It can happen that more babies are born in good locality and as a result the infant mortality in US is steadily declining.

GMATNinja karishma

The passage points out that the "overall" rate of infant mortality has been declining in the United States. But then, it tells us this doesn't necessarily mean that babies are now, "on average," healthier at birth. The right answer should support this statement.

Let's now consider (A):


How does (A) impact the statement in the passage? Well, the passage already tells us that the infant mortality rate in the U.S. is an "overall" rate, and that certain areas have high infant mortality (i.e. higher than many developing countries). So (A) doesn't really add anything new.

From another angle -- it's true, as the passage says, that some localities in the U.S. have higher rates of infant mortality than many developing countries. So it's possible that babies in those specific localities are not healthier than babies were in the past. But we also know that despite that, the "overall" rate of infant mortality is declining. So the fact that some localities have deficiencies still wouldn't explain why babies "on average" in the U.S. are no more healthy, despite the "overall" declining infant mortality rate.

For both those reason, (A) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!

The passage conclusion compares the average health status of babies at PRESENT with the average health status of babies in PAST.
Although the overall infant mortality rate has declined. But the average health status of babies at PRESENT may not be any better than the average health status of babies in PAST.

MEANING: More babies are surviving now. But these babies may not be necessarily healthier than the babies born in past.

The correct option should support this conclusion.

C does this. More babies are surviving now. Not because they are healthy but mostly because of the extremely sophisticated technology. More unhealthy babies are surviving now, contributing to the decline in infant mortality rate.

A society’s infant mortality rate is an accepted indicator of that society’s general health status. Even though in some localities in the United States the rate is higher than in many developing countries, in the United States overall the rate has been steadily declining. 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.

Which one of the following reasons, if true, most strongly supports the claim made above about the implications of the decline?

(A) The figure for infant mortality is compiled as an overall rate and thus masks deficiencies in particular localities. - WRONG. Not really a strengthener but at best a weakener, though needs an assumption for that too.

(B) Low birth weight is a contributing factor in more than half of the infant deaths in the United States. - WRONG. A good candidate actually. Basically it gives another reason but again how. We are not sure how low the weight has been, whether it has gone up(strengthens) or down(weakens). This goes in either way which makes is weaker choice relatively.

(C) The United States has been developing and has achieved extremely sophisticated technology for saving premature and low-birth-weight babies, most of whom require extended hospital stays. - CORRECT. Alternative reasoning for depreciating decline.

(D) In eleven states of the United States, the infant mortality rate declined last year. - WRONG. So what.!!! Nothing can be ascertained. Strengthens at first look but its conditional.

(E) Babies who do not receive adequate attention from a caregiver fail to thrive and so they gain weight slowly. - WRONG. Out of context/scope timeline-wise.

Answer C.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.