PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 6
The best way to increase the blood supply(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AIncreasing blood donation(18 more words not shown)
- BThe pool of(25 more words not shown)
- CA follow-up study(27 more words not shown)
- DIn the city(18 more words not shown)
- EAlmost all of(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Getting someone who already donates to come back more often sounds plausible. Perhaps a donor gives three times a year simply because that's when they remember. Emails or texts might bring that person back six times instead, if that frequency were safe. We wouldn't have to persuade a completely new person to try donating.
That is the appeal of the results from Moorestown and Fredricksburg. Recruiting first-time donors was difficult and expensive, occasional donors resisted coming more often, and regular donors responded to encouragement. But we want the best approach for Pulaski. Are these cities alike in the ways that matter?
Imagine that the two study cities were retirement communities while Pulaski was a college town. Perhaps the study cities had few easy opportunities to recruit new donors, while Pulaski could reach a fresh group of interested students each year. In that situation, recruiting new people might work much better in Pulaski than the study suggests. Those are hypothetical differences, not facts about the three cities.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, I'd want a meaningful difference like that. The success elsewhere could be real while still failing to establish that asking regular donors for more is Pulaski's best option.
Working the answers
- A
This confirms that persuading regular donors to give more actually increased the other cities' blood supply. That is evidence in favor of the approach, not a problem with it. We can still question whether it will transfer to Pulaski, but A doesn't supply a reason it wouldn't.
- B
Pulaski has a larger proportion of frequent donors, so this does identify a difference. But why would that make the approach fail? It could mean the target group forms a larger share of Pulaski's potential donors. The answer doesn't tell us whether those donors could be persuaded to give more. Also, a larger proportion isn't automatically a larger number of people; the total pools could differ in size.
- C
A follow-up study sounds promising: perhaps the campaign produced a brief burst of donations and then people stopped coming. But finish reading. Their donation frequency remained higher over the long term. That is evidence that the effect lasted, not that it faded. The answer takes the possible objection I was looking for and gives us the opposite result.
- D
More sporadic donors means a larger group we might consider recruiting. It doesn't establish how responsive that group would be or how much additional blood either group could provide. A large reluctant group might contribute less additional blood than a smaller responsive one. Counts alone don't decide which strategy is best.
- ECorrect
Here is a different obstacle from my new-donor example: Pulaski's regular donors have almost no safe room to increase their frequency. Encouragement cannot create that room. If someone is already giving as often as is medically safe, sending more reminders doesn't solve the problem.
The study cities gained blood by getting regular donors to give more often. Almost all of Pulaski's regular donors are already at the safety limit, so the very change that produced those gains is largely unavailable here. That weakens the recommendation without denying that the other cities succeeded.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.