PT81.S2.Q13 - A six-month public health campaign

ALLCAA123

I still don't understand why A is right and C is wrong. The conclusion reads, "it's obvious that the public headed the campaign", meaning they followed the campaign's advice and washed their hands more frequently or stopped going to public places, all because the rate of influenza went down at the time of the campaign. That's the conclusion and its support. Since this is a cause-effect relationship, I assumed that a correct strengthener would reaffirm that hand-washing or avoiding public spaces did indeed go up.

I got rid of everything except for A and C. I wasn't sure about A, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what's wrong with C. JY says in his explanation that, if anything, it weakens the argument by 'presenting an alternate cause', but I disagree with this. One aspect of the campaign was to reduce people's attendance in public places if they had the flu. If fewer gatherings occur during the 6 month period, that's clear evidence that people went out a bit less than they did before the campaign. Thus, it's likelier that they heeded the campaign (yea we can argue if that was really b/c of the campaign or whatever, but the point of a strengthen/weaken answer choice is have some kind of impact on the support/conclusion relationship, no matter how big or small). I feel the same way about A in that it shows people might have washed their hands more during the campaign. Nevertheless, I think both answers can plausibly strengthen the argument. Where have I gone wrong?

Thank you!!!!

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-2-question-13/

AudaciousRed

The argument's conclusion is "lower illness/flu -> the public heeded the campaign" now.. what was the campaign? 1. Washing hands or 2. "Avoiding public spaces when they experience influenza symptoms".
We want to strengthen that conclusion that either 1 or 2 definitely happened because we see less illness.

A gives us an idea that they have seen lower illness when people wash their hands. That makes sense and definitely fits in with our point being made in the stimulus.
C says "there were fewer public gatherings". Okay. Cool. That's not hand washing, but does it support "avoiding public places when you have flu symptoms"? No. It actually doesn't. So, there were fewer public gatherings. Maybe because organizers didn't make as many events. Maybe Ogdenville is cheaper than Springfield to hold an event. And C says nothing about people being sick staying home. Not at all. So, this is not at all the same thing. Events not being held and sick people not going out in public has no connection. So, that means talking about events is introducing stuff that really has nothing to do with what the stimulus is saying.

I hope this made more sense! This question is tricky because it makes you pull in your own preconceived notions (less events = less sick people right?). Things the text does not at all say.
Now, A isn't super great, but it does strengthen the idea that hand washing works. Sometimes, it's not always a perfect answer, but the best answer for the question.