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

Question

13. 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.
 
(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.

(C) There were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period.

(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.

(E) In a survey completed before the campaign began, many people admitted that they should do more to limit the spread of influenza.

Official LSAT

LeoGT · Accepted Answer

Compaign  : encouraging people to take precautions
 1. washing their hands frequently and
 2. avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms
  Evidence  : incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted
  Conclution  : the public evidently heeded the campaign
Here we have link: campaign=> lower incident.
To strenthen the argument, answer should prove campaign does lead to 1 or 2 precautious.

C look attractive. But we our precautious dont include not to gather in public places.
From "fewer gatherings in public places" to "those who have fluenza avoids public places" needs very big asumptions. 
Example: 
100 gatherings to 99 also means fewer
Those who dont have fluenza dont gather but those who have still appear at public places.

Very happy to hearing your opinion. We disscuss and then we improve.

vineethshankar · Answer

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

catinabox · Answer

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.

Shikhar22 · Answer

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

AndrewN · Answer

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   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

unraveled · Answer

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.

vasu1104 · Answer

six month campaign - limit the spread of influenza. 
 steps - wash hands frequently and avoid public place if having symptoms of it. 
 effect- during those months incidence of influenza was much lower than predicted.

Conclusion- public followed the campaign.

A if this disease can be contolled by the same steps and its incidence was lower as well then it means people have followed the plan. so this is correct. 
 B if the symptoms are same for both but the one has the same rate as usual that means people are not following the plan, reject. 
 C then it somewhat weakens the plan though. of there werent enough public gathering then chances of spreading the symptoms were less. so campaign was not the sole reason. 
 D this also does the same thing as above chocie. reject. 
 E okay so even before the campaign they knew they needed to do more, then comping up with campaign was just coincident. even if it had not been there, public would have done that anyway because they realized the impact of disease. so reject.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards