PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 13
A six-month public health campaign sought to limit(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe incidence of(20 more words not shown)
- BDuring the six-month(22 more words not shown)
- CThere were fewer(9 more words not shown)
- DIndependently of the(22 more words not shown)
- EIn a survey(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fewer flu cases don't tell us that people listened to the campaign. What if the flu was milder than expected, more people were vaccinated, or people stayed home for some unrelated reason? Any of those could help explain the lower incidence without showing that the campaign changed behavior.
The campaign's advice makes sense as a proposed way to reduce spread: wash hands frequently and stay away from public places when experiencing symptoms. But giving advice and having people follow it are different. I'd like evidence connecting the public's behavior to the campaign, rather than just another description of how few people got sick.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, my first thought is people reporting that they actually followed the campaign's advice. We need some reason to believe the public took the suggested precautions.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives indirect evidence for one of those precautions. Food-borne illnesses can be controlled by frequent hand washing, and they were also unusually uncommon during the campaign. That is consistent with people washing their hands more, as the campaign encouraged.
It isn't the direct report I predicted, and it doesn't prove that the campaign caused the change. Other explanations remain possible. But a decrease in another illness affected by the same recommended behavior gives us additional reason to think that behavior occurred. It supports the conclusion that people heeded the advice, rather than leaving us with only the flu figure.
- B
The common cold remaining at its usual level doesn't show that people adopted the campaign's precautions. Sharing some symptoms with influenza doesn't establish what this unchanged rate tells us about hand washing or avoiding public places when ill. B supplies no clear link from the campaign to changed behavior.
- C
Fewer gatherings being held is different from sick people deciding to stay away from gatherings that are available. The campaign told people what precautions to take; C instead gives a circumstance that could reduce contact whether or not people listened.
If there were simply fewer events to attend, the flu might spread less for that reason. That gives a possible alternative to the campaign explanation. We shouldn't read 'fewer gatherings' as if it said people stayed home because they followed the advice.
- D
The news media's independent message gives people another possible reason to wash their hands. They might follow that message rather than the public health campaign. D doesn't establish that the campaign was heeded, even if the same behavior would help reduce flu in either case.
- E
Admitting beforehand that you should do more doesn't show that you later did more. People could recognize the need for precautions and still ignore the campaign. We need evidence of following the advice, not merely a prior statement of good intentions.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.