Text 1: Historian Dr. Rachel Moore analyzes industrial-era public health. "Sanitation infrastructure—sewers, clean water—saved more lives than medicine," Moore writes. "Engineering solutions to disease transmission transformed urban mortality."
Text 2: Medical historian Dr. David Park examines sanitation narratives. "Sanitation undoubtedly helped, but the story is more complex," Park notes. "Nutrition improvements, fewer crowded households, and later medical advances all contributed. Attributing gains solely to infrastructure oversimplifies."
How does Park's analysis relate to Moore's historical claim?
It completely rejects any role for sanitation
It adds additional factors to a multicausal explanation
It argues mortality didn't actually decline
It focuses on a completely different time period
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Park doesn't reject sanitation's role ("undoubtedly helped") but adds factors: nutrition, housing, medicine. He expands a single-cause story into multicausal complexity.
- Evidence: Park: multiple factors "all contributed."
- Reasoning: Moore emphasizes one cause; Park adds others.
- Conclusion: Park enriches without replacing Moore's account.
Choice A is incorrect because Park accepts sanitation helped. Choice C is incorrect because Park discusses what caused decline. Choice D is incorrect because both examine industrial era.