Patient: Doctor, I read an article that claimed that the first few hours after birth are very important to establishing a mother-infant bond, which is the first step in building a healthy relationship. Can you assure me that my relationship with my baby has not been permanently harmed by our separation for several days after his birth?
Physician: Your relationship with your child has not been harmed by the separation. Mother-infant bonding is not like an “instant glue” that cements your relationship forever. Having your infant with you during the period immediately after birth does give your relationship a head start, but many factors are involved in building a strong and lasting relationship between a mother and her child.
If everything the doctor says is correct, which one of the following must be true?
Prethinking: While the patient thinks mother-infant bonding during first few hours of birth is a "necessary and sufficient" condition for a healthy relationship with the baby, the doctor thinks "it's good to have" but not necessary as there are other equally if not less important factors. We have to look for option that captures this essence of the doctor's opinion.(A) The best relationships between mothers and their children are caused by immediate mother-infant bonding.
-- WRONG, the opposite of what doctor said(B) There is a high degree of correlation between the best relationships between mothers and their children and those that began with immediate mother-infant bonding.
-- same as A; though it has some correlation, it's not really a dealbreaker.
(C) A strong and lasting relationship is necessary for mother-infant bonding.
-- It's one of the premises, not assumption(D) Where immediate mother-infant bonding takes place, a strong and lasting relationship between a mother and her child will be assured.
-- Same as B(E) Immediate mother-infant bonding is not necessary for a strong and lasting relationship between a mother and her child.
-- CORRECT, "good-to-have" but not necessaryAnswer is
E