PrepTest 118

Incorrect. This was the research that called the old view into question, and research is almost always a premise.

Incorrect. This answer isn't stated at any point in the argument, nor is it implied.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Old belief: Research would eliminate disease.
New information: Microorganisms evolve too rapidly to have medicines for all of them.
Conclusion/new belief: Best public health strategy is to inform people to minimize disease transmission.

Answer Anticipation:
The structure of this argument is much more straightforward than we normally see in a Main Point question. An opposing point is introduced, the pivot highlights research (which will almost always be a premise), and the last statement has clear conclusion indicators ("therefore," and a determination of what the "most rational" course of action is). So the correct answer will reflect that last sentence, but we should stay flexible when reading through them because it's likely the LSAT will introduce some difficulty in the way that it chooses to paraphrase it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't explicitly state the conclusion, but it does paraphrase it. The conclusion calls one public health strategy the "most rational" and states that it involves placing "much more emphasis than at present"—in other words, there should be a change in our public health strategy. This answer reflects that, so it's the correct answer. We knew they'd make this question a bit more difficult in the way they phrased the right answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a Main Point question has a very straightforward structure with a clear conclusion indicator word, there's a good chance that the answer choice is going to feature a bit of a paraphrase to make it a little more difficult to get the answer right. Stay flexible in these questions so that you don't miss an answer that conveys the same idea as the conclusion without using the same language.

Incorrect. While the conclusion does state that informing people of disease transmission should minimize the incidence of these diseases, this answer is too extreme in stating that "[n]o one" who is informed will "ever" catch it.

Incorrect. This answer might form the basis for why a new approach is necessary, but it doesn't outline that need itself, which is what the main point of the argument was.