The retinas of premature babies are not fully developed at birth. Because their retinas are so delicate, premature babies sometimes lose their sight. Methods for preventing this syndrome, which is called retinopathy of prematurity, have improved, but the proportion of premature babies who lose their sight because of this syndrome has increased.The passage presents a somewhat surprising situation. Methods for preventing retinopathy of prematurity have improved, but the proportion of premature babies who lose their sight because of the syndrome has not decreased, as might have been expected, but rather increased.
Which of the following, if true, best reconciles the apparent discrepancy described above?This is a Paradox or Best Explains question, and the correct answer will be the one that provides the best explanation for the surprising development.
In other words, it will provide a possible explanation for the fact that the proportion of premature babies who lose their sight because of the syndrome has increased rather than decreased.
(A) When premature babies are born, their retinas are developmentally unprepared to deal with light and air in the environment outside the womb.This choice explains why premature babies experience retinopathy of prematurity.
However, it does not explain why the proportion of premature babies who lose their sight because of the syndrome has increased.
After all, presumably, what this choice says has been true all along. So, it would not explain why the proportion of premature babies who experience the syndrome is greater now than it was in the past.
Eliminate.
(B) The oxygen that must be administered to premature babies at birth can sometimes have a damaging effect on the babies’ retinas, but the oxygen is now administered in less damaging concentrations than it used to be.This choice does the opposite of what we need.
After all, a reduction in the concentrations of oxygen would be expected to cause a decrease in the proportion of premature babies who experience the syndrome.
So, this choice deepens rather than explains the paradox.
Eliminate.
(C) The effects of retinopathy of prematurity can be reduced by controlling the exposure of premature babies to light and oxygen, but this method cannot completely prevent the syndrome.This choice helps to explain why the syndrome still occurs, but it does not explain why the proportion of premature babies who experience the syndrome has increased.
After all, presumably, what this choice says has been true all along. So, it would not explain why the proportion is greater now than it was in the past.
Eliminate.
(D) The improvement of methods to prevent retinopathy of prematurity has been a gradual process, and there is still a need for further knowledge.This choice explains why retinopathy is not prevented in all cases.
At the same time, the fact that the improvement of methods has been a gradual process would not explain why the proportion of premature babies who experience the syndrome has increased. After all, even slow improvement in methods should result in a decrease in the proportion who experience the syndrome, not an increase.
Eliminate.
(E) Improved medical technology is saving the lives of premature babies who would previously have died, but these babies have even more delicate retinas than do other premature babies and are more apt to lose their sight.This choice is interesting.
It indicates that, currently, among premature babies, there are ones who are more likely to experience the syndrome than any premature babies were in the past.
We can see that, in this situation, it could be that the reason why the proportion of premature babies who experience the syndrome has increased is that the babies with more delicate retinas experience the syndrome in a relatively high proportion of cases even though methods of prevention have improved. So, because such a high proportion of these babies experience the syndrome, the proportion of all premature babies who experience the syndrome has increased.
Keep.
Correct answer: E