Loading...
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.
Which of the following, if true, best reconciles the apparent discrepancy described above?
When premature babies are born, their retinas are developmentally unprepared to deal with light and air in the environment outside the womb.
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.
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.
The improvement of methods to prevent retinopathy of prematurity has been a gradual process, and there is still a need for further knowledge.
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.
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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 argument presents a medical puzzle by first explaining the problem (premature babies have delicate retinas that can cause blindness), then showing an apparent contradiction (prevention methods improved but blindness rates increased). This sets up a paradox that needs explanation.
There's no explicit conclusion - this is a paradox presentation. The main point is that despite better prevention methods for retinopathy of prematurity, more premature babies are losing their sight from this condition.
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a paradox structure: Medical fact + Problem + Improvement + Contradictory outcome = Puzzle that needs resolving
Paradox - We need to resolve the contradiction between improved prevention methods and increased proportion of babies losing sight
The key claims involve proportions (percentage of premature babies losing sight) and quality comparisons (prevention methods have improved). We must respect that both facts are true - methods really did improve AND the proportion really did increase
For paradox questions, we need to find a scenario that explains how both seemingly contradictory facts can be true simultaneously. We're looking for a third factor or hidden variable that reconciles the apparent discrepancy. The explanation should make it logical that even with better prevention methods, the proportion of sight loss has increased
When premature babies are born, their retinas are developmentally unprepared to deal with light and air in the environment outside the womb.
This just restates what we already know - that premature babies' retinas aren't ready for the outside environment. While this explains why the condition exists in the first place, it doesn't help us understand why the proportion of babies losing sight has increased despite better prevention methods. This choice doesn't address the paradox at all.
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 mentions that oxygen can damage retinas but is now given in less damaging concentrations. If anything, this supports the idea that prevention methods have improved and should lead to fewer cases of vision loss, not more. This actually makes the paradox worse rather than resolving it.
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 tells us that current prevention methods can reduce effects but can't completely prevent the syndrome. However, this doesn't explain why the proportion of babies losing sight has increased. Even if prevention isn't perfect, we'd still expect some improvement, not a worsening proportion.
The improvement of methods to prevent retinopathy of prematurity has been a gradual process, and there is still a need for further knowledge.
This says that improvement has been gradual and more knowledge is needed. Like Choice C, this doesn't explain why we're seeing an increase in the proportion of affected babies. Gradual improvement should still lead to some reduction in vision loss, not an increase.
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 perfectly resolves the paradox! It explains that medical technology is now saving the lives of extremely premature babies who would have died before. These newly-surviving babies have even more delicate retinas and higher risk of vision loss. So we have two competing effects: (1) better prevention methods reducing vision loss in the original population, and (2) expansion of the surviving population to include higher-risk babies. The second effect can outweigh the first, causing the overall proportion to increase even while prevention methods improve. Both facts can be true simultaneously.