PrepTest 146

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
A public health campaign seeking to minimize the spread of flu coincided with a lower-than-expected level of flu. Therefore, the public listened to the campaign.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a classic correlation/causation jump. The stimulus goes from information about a period of lower-than-expected flu infections followed a public information campaign, and it concludes that the campaign drove that effect. When that's the case, the correct answer in a Strengthen question will generally eliminate an alternative cause, show more examples of cause and effect going together (e.g., other campaigns that worked), or show examples of the cause being absent when the effect was absent (sometimes called a "control").

However, the conclusion implies the causality instead of flat out stating it. When that's the case, it's important to take note of what the conclusion actually says, as the correct answer can frequently change up the traditional Strengthen answers when dealing with a correlation/causation flaw. Here, the conclusion is that the public heeded the campaign, so any answer that shows they listened to the recommendations would also serve to strengthen the argument.

Answer Explanation:
Wow, tricky answer, LSAT! This answer can seem very out of scope, but it does mention hand washing, which was one of the recommendations made by the public health campaign. This answer suggests that people were washing their hands more, thus resulting in a lower incidence of food-borne illnesses. By providing evidence that the public was washing their hands more, this answer strengthens the conclusion that the public heeded the campaign's advice, thus making it more likely that it did, in fact, have an impact on flu rates.

Key Takeaway:
In a normal Strengthen question with a correlation/causation flaw, the correct answer will eliminate alternative causes, bring up more examples of cause and effect going together, or establish situations where the cause was absent and so was the effect. This question took a different tack, and it did so in a way related to the different conclusion. Here, the conclusion wasn't explicitly causal, but it implied that causality by saying the public heeded the campaign. Similarly, the correct answer implied the public heeded the campaign by showing another correlation that would make sense in the context of them doing so. This made the question a much more difficult version of a Strengthen question, highlighting the need to stay flexible in this question type!

Incorrect. Since we don't know if the causes, cures, or means of preventing the common cold overlaps with those of the flu, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The relevant information is attendance at these public gatherings, not the number of gatherings. Also, "fewer" is such a weak answer—that could mean 1 fewer gathering, which shouldn't really move the flu rate all that much.

Incorrect. This answer suggests an alternative cause of the lower flu rate—a media campaign could have caused the lower rate of flu infections rather than the public health campaign.

Incorrect. The stimulus would only be strengthened if there were evidence that people actually did something to prevent the spread of the flu, and there's no evidence that people believing they should do something in any way increases action to do so.