Self-study
Efraim: The popular press continually advises people to avoid various health risks. ███ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████ █ █████ ██████ █████ █████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████████ ██████████████ ██████ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███████
█████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██████████
Efraim's Argument
Efraim concludes that it's healthier to ignore journalists' advice to avoid health risks, rather than trying to follow that advice. Why? Because trying to avoid all those health risks causes anxiety, and anxiety is itself a health risk.
Felicity's Argument
Felicity concludes that ignoring journalists' warnings is not the healthier course of action, in disagreement with Efraim's conclusion. Felicity supports this position with the historical example of smoking. Journalists informed people of the dangers of smoking, which caused many people to stop smoking, and therefore live longer and healthier lives.
19.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ████████ ████████
a
A significant proportion ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ██████████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ █████ █████ ███████████
Efraim claims that it's healthier to ignore journalists' warnings, in order to avoid the health risks of anxiety. For that to be true, it's not necessary for journalists' warnings to be ineffective. It's just necessary for anxiety to be a worse risk than whatever the journalists are warning against.
b
Journalists who advise ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████████
It doesn't matter how alarming or soothing the journalists' language is: Efraim says that
c
The popular press ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████ ██████
Whether journalists are right, wrong, united, divided, or anything else isn't necessary to the argument. Efraim's key point is that health-related anxiety is worse than any risks one might avoid by listening to journalists. The strength of that argument doesn't depend on how unanimous journalists are.
d
The anxiety, if ████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██████████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███████
Efraim doesn't talk about the risks that might arise from ignoring journalists, but he has to assume they're outweighed by the anxiety caused by listening to journalists. Anxiety from ignoring journalists is just a specific example, and so must also be assumed to be lesser.
e
Most strategies for ███████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████████
Efraim isn't talking about "most" anxiety-reduction strategies. He's just weighing the health pros and cons of listening to journalists' health warnings. Sure, ignoring journalists happens to be one way to reduce anxiety. But that doesn't require assuming anything about other anxiety-reduction strategies.