- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:53 pm
#36396
Complete Question Explanation
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (C)
The structure of this argument requires you to follow the indicator words used by the public health
expert. The fi rst sentence is a premise that sets up a point of view. The second sentence offers a
counter-premise (“however”) that provides new information suggesting that the beliefs are unlikely
to be achieved. The fi nal sentence is the conclusion (“therefore”) of the argument, wherein the expert
suggests that a new health policy is required.
Your task in this problem is to fi nd the answer choice that best matches the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is a premise of the argument, not the conclusion. In Main Point questions a
premise is never the correct answer.
Answer choice (B): This is unsupported by the argument. Microorganisms are evolving, and cannot,
in general, be eradicated, but that does not mean that a specifi c patient cannot be cured of a specifi c
disease.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. In the last sentence the expert believes that
there should be a change of strategy regarding microorganisms, and that idea matches the idea in this
answer choice. It does not matter that this choice abstractly, rather than specifi cally, describes the
conclusion; this answer provides a general description of the main point of the argument, and that is
suffi cient to be correct.
Answer choice (D): The expert referred specifi cally to “minimizing the incidence of such diseases,”
so there is no reason to believe that he or she concludes that educating people about transmission
will eliminate the diseases.
Answer choice (E): Some test takers select this choice because it sounds more specifi c than answer
choice (C). However, there are two reasons this answer is incorrect. First, the conclusion of the
argument goes beyond the possible fl aws of previous approaches to advocate a new approach. So,
even if this statement were true, it is not the main point. Second, when current medical research
reveals new information about a situation, it would be improper to say that previous beliefs
“ignored” that evidence. A better phrasing would have been that previous approaches were unaware
of that information.
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (C)
The structure of this argument requires you to follow the indicator words used by the public health
expert. The fi rst sentence is a premise that sets up a point of view. The second sentence offers a
counter-premise (“however”) that provides new information suggesting that the beliefs are unlikely
to be achieved. The fi nal sentence is the conclusion (“therefore”) of the argument, wherein the expert
suggests that a new health policy is required.
Your task in this problem is to fi nd the answer choice that best matches the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is a premise of the argument, not the conclusion. In Main Point questions a
premise is never the correct answer.
Answer choice (B): This is unsupported by the argument. Microorganisms are evolving, and cannot,
in general, be eradicated, but that does not mean that a specifi c patient cannot be cured of a specifi c
disease.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. In the last sentence the expert believes that
there should be a change of strategy regarding microorganisms, and that idea matches the idea in this
answer choice. It does not matter that this choice abstractly, rather than specifi cally, describes the
conclusion; this answer provides a general description of the main point of the argument, and that is
suffi cient to be correct.
Answer choice (D): The expert referred specifi cally to “minimizing the incidence of such diseases,”
so there is no reason to believe that he or she concludes that educating people about transmission
will eliminate the diseases.
Answer choice (E): Some test takers select this choice because it sounds more specifi c than answer
choice (C). However, there are two reasons this answer is incorrect. First, the conclusion of the
argument goes beyond the possible fl aws of previous approaches to advocate a new approach. So,
even if this statement were true, it is not the main point. Second, when current medical research
reveals new information about a situation, it would be improper to say that previous beliefs
“ignored” that evidence. A better phrasing would have been that previous approaches were unaware
of that information.