To determine why the author might have set up the text to contrast the deaths in the first clinic with those in the second clinic, let's analyze the options:
A) This option suggests that the author contrasts the deaths to provide information about the staff qualifications, which could be a clue to the epidemic's solution. However, it doesn't inherently explain the deaths' disparity.
B) This option indicates the author wants to show the difficulty of solving the epidemic. While it could be true, it doesn’t specifically address the contrast.
C) This option suggests that highlighting the similarities in staffing could illustrate the confusion surrounding the differing outcomes, which may effectively emphasize the mystery behind the epidemic.
D) This option indicates the author uses the contrast to demonstrate the logical process Semmelweis used to arrive at a solution, implying that the differing outcomes led to insights.
Among these options, C) to show how the staffing at each was alike, which highlights the confusion about why one had more deaths than the other, is the most appropriate. It directly addresses the purpose of the contrast while also reflecting on the implications of the similarities. This creates nuance by emphasizing the puzzling nature of the epidemic.