What poet Walt Whitman saw in Virginia was a common sight at Civil War hospitals. If a soldier had been struck in the arm or leg, the bullet tended to shatter the bone, creating horrendous wounds. The wounds were certain to become infected, and often the only way to save the patient's life was to amputate the limb.
As gruesome as it is, B is the best choice. You have to remember this was many years before Pasteur and his discoveries. No sulfa drugs, no penicillin then. http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/uncover-history/behind-lens/wound-infection/
amputation
Which most accurately analyzes how this procedure proved a valuable resource to the war effort?
It was a convenient remedy for battlefield injuries.
It minimized the number of casualties due to infection.
It kept soldiers in the hospital for less time.
Amputation was performed quickly and painlessly.
I don't know if it is B or D. It helped fight infection but it also only took a few minutes and the patient was put under for the procedure. I'm leaning towards B?
4 answers
I lean toward B. What does your text say?
It basically supports both but agrees with B more.
B is true for future people
Disclaimer though I want 100$ for giving the right answer
Disclaimer though I want 100$ for giving the right answer