A six-month public health campaign sought to limit the spread of influ

IMO, answer is C.

Pre thinking:
Anything which provides a strong evidence regarding people paying more attention and support to campaign will be our answer

(A) The incidence of food-borne illnesses, which can be effectively controlled by frequent hand washing, was markedly lower than usual during the six-month period.
- Incorrect. Food-borne illness is irrelevant.

(B) During the six-month period, the incidence of the common cold, which has many of the same symptoms as influenza, was about the same as usual.
- Incorrect. Common cold is irrelevant
(C) There were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period.
- Correct. This is in line with our pre thinking. This tells us that people were strictly following the campaign and avoided public gatherings
(D) Independently of the public health campaign, the news media spread the message that one's risk of contracting influenza can be lessened by frequent hand washing.
- Incorrect. This talks about media spreading the news and nothing about people following the campaign.
(E) In a survey completed before the campaign began, many people admitted that they should do more to limit the spread of influenza.
- Incorrect. We don't know the basis of the survey and how many people were involved in it.

Posted from my mobile device

I would like to go with A.
Since A is only option which says that some more side effects ( food born infection) have been observed those can be a result of the campaign.

Posted from my mobile device

+A
A gives evidence to believe that public took the campaign seriously by washing hands frequently, an aspect of the campaign.

Correct and to the point reasoning!
I don't know why I chose option (E). But now it makes much more sense.

Hi,
Is influenza a food borne illness?
Why is A right and why is B wrong?
Please help!!

See for the reasoning: Influenza reduced because of heeding to the government campaign. Option B does not address this reasoning.
Option A provides apt reasoning that people took the campaign seriously & therefore, another outcome from the same reasoning was successful as well. Best of all the OPTIONS.

Why is E wrong? People expressed willingness to change their behavior and so are more likely to heed the campaign advice. No?

The argument in the question is that the public campaign helped reduce the spread of influenza. But how do we know that it was the campaign that helped slow down influenza and not some external factor, as could be possible if for example, the temperature was markedly higher in the 6 month period (as this disease spreads faster in colder months)?

If people actually heeded the campaign, something else associated with the two activities promoted, that is, either washing hands or infected people not attending public gatherings, should be visible. Option A does exactly that. Option C is a sly trap, public gatherings can be reduced for any reason, and that actually weakens our argument.

Option E does not really affect the argument, since there may not be any overlap between people saying they should do more to check the spread of influenza and actually doing it. In any case, it does not help the argument, which seeks to demonstrate that it was the campaign that helped slow down the spread.

C is a trap. The conclusion is that since the incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted, the public evidently heeded the campaign. If there were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period, then it's possible that fewer large gatherings resulted in fewer opportunities for transmission. As a result, it's not the the campaign that limited the spread of influenza. C actually weakens the argument.

A on the other hand tells us that the incidence of food-borne illnesses was markedly lower than usual during the six-month period. Since the incidence of food-borne illnesses can be controlled by frequent hand washing, we have reason to believe that more people are washing their hands frequently. This strengthens the conclusion that the public heeded the campaign.

Now, can we be absolutely certain that the higher frequency was the result of the campaign? No -- but A nudges us in that direction and strengthens the argument.

Answer is A.

Hey AndrewN

Is A the OA and not B, only because ‘markedly lower’ in A strenghtens the argument more, than 'fewer' in the option C?

Posted from my mobile device

Good question, Shikhar22. I can see from the timer statistics that (C) is the most common incorrect answer selected. Note that in order to strengthen the argument, we need to follow exactly what that argument says.


Quite simply, the argument is that the public heeded the campaign. The basis for the argument is that the incidence of influenza was much lower during those [six] months than experts had predicted. The campaign itself encouraged people to take precautions such as washing their hands frequently and avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms. If lower-than-predicted cases of influenza presented within the timeframe in question, then, we need to attribute such success either to frequent hand washing or to avoidance of public places (under certain circumstances) or both.


Although it might seem as if food-borne illnesses and influenza have little in common, the spread of both, apparently, can be curbed by frequent hand washing. The suggestion is that people must have been washing their hands frequently, and since that matches one of the recommendations from the health campaign, we are left to deduce that the reduction in the incidence of both food-borne illnesses and influenza might logically have been influenced by the campaign. This is a qualified answer.


We are not interested in symptoms, only in what people may have done in response to the health campaign. Furthermore, the same incidence of the common cold does not suggest any public benefit from the health campaign. There is no compelling reason to select this answer.


Note that the argument does not say anything about large public gatherings specifically. This is an associative thought that loosely relates to the recommendation that people who exhibit symptoms of influenza avoid public places. Any public place would do, not just large public gatherings. This is not what we are looking for in a strengthener.


If you read the first part too fast, the latter part might snare you. It looks right and matches up with the passage. The problem, of course, is that we are looking to strengthen an argument based on the public health campaign, not on some other campaign or message. This answer choice is an irrelevant concern.


Again, this information has nothing to do with the campaign itself. These survey findings have no bearing on the argument.

There you have it. Answer choice (A) is the only option that correlates directly with the argument. Choice (C), the one you asked about, goes awry in its specificity, chasing an idea that only somewhat related to the recommendation on avoiding public places in general.

I hope my response proves helpful to you and the community. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

A six-month public health campaign sought to limit the spread of influenza by encouraging people to take precautions such as washing their hands frequently and avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms. Since the incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted, the public evidently heeded the campaign.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The incidence of food-borne illnesses, which can be effectively controlled by frequent hand washing, was markedly lower than usual during the six-month period. - CORRECT. POE helps. But this suggests that there is some evidence(lower cases of food-borne illnesses) that people paid attention to the campaign.

(B) During the six-month period, the incidence of the common cold, which has many of the same symptoms as influenza, was about the same as usual. - WRONG. So what!! It's nowhere near to the conclusion.

(C) There were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period. - WRONG. Fewer or not large public gatherings has a different meaning than public places.

(D) Independently of the public health campaign, the news media spread the message that one's risk of contracting influenza can be lessened by frequent hand washing. - WRONG. Weakens instead. We have now got another reason behind such lower number of incidence of influenza.

(E) In a survey completed before the campaign began, many people admitted that they should do more to limit the spread of influenza. - WRONG. So, people already were ready to do something irrespective of the campaigner.

Answer A.