ravigupta2912 wrote:
I did get this right since negating B would absolutely destroy the conclusion and open doors to an alternate reason other than Nebulisers. But can someone explain E to me? I couldn't figure out what negating that would imply.
EDIT - Could it be that negating B would give "not shown a similar increase" and we are not really concerned with the rate of increase but with the cause of such increase (since the conclusion talks of cause while equalising the conditions which lead to Bronchitis)
EDIT - Could it be that negating B would give "not shown a similar increase" and we are not really concerned with the rate of increase but with the cause of such increase (since the conclusion talks of cause while equalising the conditions which lead to Bronchitis)
ravigupta2912 :- I would usually not negate the choices that don't make sense at all.
For eg. E discusses about urban population - a point that the author has already thrown out of consideration as evident in the premise supporting the conclusion. Even if you negate that choice it wouldn't add anything to the argument since urban population is out of consideration for the cities under discussion. Moreover, E discusses about cities with heavy urban population - not a focus of this argument