PT153 S3 Q6 ExplanationThe best way to increase the blood supply

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Strengthens1% picked this

   Increasing blood donation by regular donors in Moorestown and Fredricksburg produced a significant increase in the blood

   This makes it seem like following the plan suggested by the author could result in a big increase in blood supply. This would strengthen the argument.

   1%
2. B

   Strengthens5% picked this

   The pool of potential blood donors in Moorestown and Fredricksburg contained proportionally fewer frequent blood donors than does the pool of potential

   It would have been an objection to point out a meaningful difference like, "This plan is unlikely to work in Pulaski. Sure, it worked in town M and town F, but that's because those two towns have a lot of regular donors. Town P doesn't have as many regular donors, so even if town P got more of them to donate more frequently it wouldn't amount to much." But this answer says the opposite. Pulaski is even more ripe of a contender for this plan, given that they have an even higher percentage of frequent donors.

   5%
3. C

   Strengthens1% picked this

   A follow-up study in Moorestown and Fredricksburg showed that long-term frequency of blood donation among regular donors remained higher after the promotional campaign than

   This rules out a backfire objection, so it strengthens a bit. We might have tried arguing that this Plan is bad, because even though it might increase donations in the short term, in the long term it exhausts the good will (and blood supply) of the regular donors, who then stop donating altogether, leaving the blood bank worse off than when it started. But this answer says the opposite of that -- long-term frequency of donation among the regulars did not decrease; it remained higher than before.

   1%
4. D

   Mildly Weakens11% picked this

   In the city of Pulaski, the number of sporadic blood donors is significantly greater than the number

   This goes against the plan a bit, since it tells us that there way more sporadic donors than regular donors. However, the evidence told us that sporadic donors can be a lost cause when it comes to requesting more-frequent donations, so in that sense it doesn't matter how many of them there are. But still, this does weaken a bit. If there are way more sporadic donors, then they are potentially a more important group to target. However, when we compare the weakening effect of (D) to (E), the latter is much stronger. (D) creates some doubt about whether this plan would be the best by making us wonder whether we should target sporadic donors instead. (E) lets us know that this plan would not be the best, because it's impossible to do it without medically endangering the blood donors.

   11%
5. E

   Correct83% picked this

   Almost all of the regular blood donors in the city of Pulaski are already giving blood as frequently

   Why this is right

   This attacks the feasibility of the plan by saying Pulaski just straight up can't do the plan. The regular donors are giving as much blood as is medically safe. We can't ask them to give even more blood.

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

   83%