It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So, I understand that the argument is saying that because incidences of the flu were lower during the 6 months of the public health campaign, that means that the campaign was effective.
I chose C - there were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the 6-month period.
But the explanation says that C is wrong because it doesn't address the effectiveness of the campaign, that A is correct because it suggests widespread compliance with the campaign's recommendations of handwashing.
But this doesn't make any sense to me because handwashing isn't the only recommendation of the campaign. Avoiding public places when experiencing flu symptoms is also a recommendation. And if there were fewer large gatherings during the 6 month period of the campaign, then wouldn't that indicate to the effectiveness of it?
The explanation argues that A speaks to the effectiveness of the campaign more than C does because food born illness rates were also low, but what if people were not necessarily washing their hands as a result of the public campaign? Maybe they work in restaurants, where handwashing is necessary. Maybe they work in schools where handwashing vital. And the argument says that the campaign recommended hand washing specifically for reducing the transmission of the flu, what if people were washing their hands to not get sick from food borne illnesses, and the decrease in the rate of the flu was just a by product, which would make it seem like the campaign worked, but it didn't necessarily?
If the public health campaign's purpose was to limit the spread of influenza, and part of the recommendation was to stay away from public places when experiencing symptoms, and during the time of the campaign, there weren't as many large public gatherings, and the rate of the flu decreased...
I mean, I know that C doesn't necessarily mean people heeded the campaign, but neither does A. So how is A more correct than C?
I'm livid because this frustrating! lol
Also, I crossed out A because the argument didn't say anything about food borne illnesses. I also got other questions wrong for doing the same thing... crossing out the right answer because it introduces something new. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong?
[SIGHS]
Someone stick a fork in me, please..
Comments
The main issue I see with C is that it is talking about something different than the recommendation in the stimulus. The stimulus says that the public health campaign encouraged people to take precautions such as "avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms," while C talks about there being "fewer large gatherings than usual during the six-month period." Avoiding public places and partaking in fewer large gatherings are two separate things. Somebody might have engaged in fewer large gatherings over the six months, but not avoided public places meaning C's evidence doesn't strengthen the argument. In fact, C's evidence could be irrelevant really. Let me know if this makes sense!
Hi Annabell!
Yes that does make sense, thank you! I seem to be struggling with catching the nuances in meaning between the stimulus and the answer choices.
I think that's what I missed on A as well. I guess if food borne illnesses were also high before the 6 month campaign and then they decreased during the campaign, then yes, obviously people were washing their hands more.
I didn't catch the "than usual" in answer choice A. I overlooked it! Careless mistake on my part!
Thank you again!