Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this

Hi,

I can see that some of the members have shared good analysis of the questions but still some of the doubts keep cropping up again. Let me add my two cents to it:

Let's first understand the passage:

Understanding the Passage

Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. - So, we have an unexpected thing here: death rate from Asthma increased even though there have been improvements in the treatment.

Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. - We have two possible explanations for the unexpected thing.

First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. - This means that probably the death rate has not increased per se but now, we are recording more deaths for every 100 deaths. For example: in the past, we used to record only 40 deaths for 100 actual deaths but now, we record, say, 70 deaths for every 100 deaths. So, this explains the increase in death rate observed even though we have better treatment.

Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. - This means that one adverse factor has increased - pollution has increased. So, even though we have better treatments but the effect of that has been nullified or even superseded by the effect of the increase in pollution. This fact also explains increase in death rates observed.

However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records - This counters first reason that increase in death rates is because of more accurate recording. It says that deaths have increase dramatically even in cities which have had accurate recording from a long time. So, the first reason cannot explain the rise in deaths.

and with little or no urban pollution, - This counters the second reason. If there is no pollution, then pollution cannot be the cause of increased deaths.

one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms. - This is the conclusion of the argument. It basically says that since the other two reasons cannot explain the increase in deaths, the reason is the use of bronchial inhalers.


Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT: - It means that we'll have four statements which will support the conclusion (do you remember the conclusion?!) and one statement which will not support the conclusion and this statement is the answer of this.

Option Statement Analysis

(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade. - Does this support the conclusion that the use of bronchial inhalers is the cause of increased death rates? The answer is No. I can only link this option statement with the second reason given about urban pollution, but the second reason has already been countered in the last statement of the passage, so this option statement is irrelevant and therefore, could be the correct option statement.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years. - This option statement further counters Reason 1 and thereby supports the conclusion.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen. - This statement directly supports the conclusion.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures. - This statement also supports the conclusion.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment. - This suggests that increase in deaths due to Asthma could be due to the introduction of bronchial inhalers. Therefore, this statement also supports the conclusion.

As we can see, option A is the clear winner.

To avoid making this post too lengthy, let me respond to the next question in the next post.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev