PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 1
Yuriko: Our city's campaign to persuade parents to(68 more words not shown)
In responding to Yuriko, Susan(6 more words not shown)
- AShe denies Yuriko's(12 more words not shown)
- BShe cites facts(15 more words not shown)
- CShe introduces evidence(16 more words not shown)
- DShe advances the(21 more words not shown)
- EShe presents evidence(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did the campaign cause the increase? Vaccinations went up after the city authorized it, but other things could have changed during those sixteen months. Perhaps families had more money, or another source of information persuaded parents to vaccinate their children.
Susan supplies a more specific possibility: free neighborhood clinics opened. Most of the increase happened just after that, before the vaccination campaign really got going. The timing gives us a reason to question giving the campaign credit. Easier access to vaccination could explain the increase instead.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what Susan does in responding to Yuriko. I'd say she points to another possible cause and shows why the increase isn't strong evidence for copying the campaign. She doesn't need to show that the campaign accomplished absolutely nothing. It's enough to make Yuriko's evidence less convincing.
Working the answers
- A
Susan doesn't say her city opposes increasing childhood vaccinations. She challenges the reason for copying this particular campaign. Agreeing with a goal doesn't mean agreeing that a proposed method has been shown to achieve it.
- BCorrect
Yuriko uses the 30 percent increase as evidence that her city's campaign should be copied. Susan gives facts about when most of that increase occurred and what else changed then. Those facts weaken the connection between the campaign and the result, and therefore weaken the support for the recommendation.
This is a broader description than our prediction, but it fits: suggesting the clinics as another explanation is how Susan reduces the force of Yuriko's evidence.
- C
Susan doesn't show that the campaign worked for a few months and then stopped working. The major increase happened before the campaign was really underway. The issue is whether the campaign deserves credit for the increase, not whether an established benefit later wore off.
- D
We aren't told what proportion of parents already choose vaccination. A 30 percent increase doesn't give us the starting vaccination rate, and Susan doesn't claim that most children were already covered. Her objection concerns the cause of the observed increase.
- E
One city's experience doesn't establish that vaccination campaigns usually fail. Susan hasn't even proved that this campaign had no effect; she has challenged attributing most of the increase to it. E turns that limited objection into a general claim about campaigns.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.