Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q13 A six-month public health

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Conclusion

The public evidently heeded the campaign (translation: the public washed their hands frequently and avoided public places when they were experiencing flu symptoms).

Evidence (since)

The incidence of flu was much lower during the six months of the campaign than experts had predicted.

Evaluate

This argument as a common structure: - This policy / this campaign / this plan went into effect - Since then / during then, we observed X. - Thus, it's clear that X resulted from that policy/plan/campaign.

These all belong to the broader category of Explain a Curious Fact.

Curious Fact ... why was the incidence of flu much lower than we predicted it would be during those 6 months?

Author's Explanation ... people heeded the campaign -> they started washing their hands more frequently / avoiding public places when they had flu symptoms -> this contributed to lower spread of the flu than there would have been otherwise

We need to consider 1. Alternate Explanations for the Curious Fact 2. the Plausibility of the Author's Explanation

What could be a different reason why the rate of flu was lower than expected? Maybe the predictions were off for some reason. Maybe there were fewer visitors (i.e. germ vectors) to the area than normal during those months. Maybe most workplaces installed better air filtration systems during those months (which helps to cut down on contagious people infecting others in the workplace).

How would we assess the plausibility of the author's explanation? We would just want any evidence we can get that people were aware of the campaign and started changing their behavior because of it (washed their hands more than they usually would / avoided public places when they felt flu symptoms more than they usually would).

Goal

Since this is Strengthen, we either need an answer to rule out a different explanation for why the rate of flu was lower than expected, or to boost the plausibility of the story that people started washing their hands and staying home when sick more than before.

13.

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

  1. Correct

    The incidence of food-borne illnesses,

    Why this is right

    This adds plausibility to the story that people were washing their hands / staying home when sick more than usual. If they were washing their hands more than usual, then we would expect to see other things connected to hand-washing (such as food-borne illnesses) affected. This answer corroborates that rates of food-borne illnesses were very different during this six-months. Another correct answer performing the same function could have said, "Sales of hand moisturizers, which are usually used when people are frequently washing their hands, was markedly higher than usual during the six-month period".

    Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  2. During the six-month period, the

    Weakens, if anything

    If people were really heeding this campaign's advice, they would stay home when they thought they might have the flu. But since the cold has many of the same symptoms, there would be a lot people staying home with a cold (thinking they are staying home with the flu). If people were increasingly staying home when they had a cold, then transmission of colds should be lower than usual. But this answer is saying transmission of colds was just as high as ever. So that somewhat weakens the plausibility of the story that people heeded this campaign and stayed home when they experienced cold/flu symptoms.

    3% picked this

  3. There were fewer large public

    Weakens

    This provides an Alternate Explanation for why the rate of flu was lower than usual. It wasn't because people heeded the advice of this public health campaign. There just weren't as many super-spreader events as there typically would be during a flu season.

    12% picked this

  4. Independently of the public health

    Weakens

    This provides an Alternate Explanation for why the rate of flu was lower than usual. It wasn't because people heeded the advice of this public health campaign. It was because they heeded the advice of their preferred news media (cable news / newspapers / twitter / etc.).

    4% picked this

  5. In a survey completed before

    Weaker than Correct Answer

    This somewhat strengthens the plausibility of the author's story, because it demonstrates that there were many people who were potentially willing to do more to limit the spread of the flu. We don't know specifically whether they were willing to wash their hands more or to more often stay home when feeling sick. So, the connection to the campaign's specific actions is very weak. And the quantifier many is not impressive. If there were even 10 people on this survey who said they should do more, we can say "many people said they'd do more".

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free