Worked Examples: Passage Analysis

This lesson brings together all the skills from the previous nine lessons by working through four complete passage analyses. Each passage includes four questions with detailed step-by-step reasoning. The goal is not just to get the right answer but to understand the reasoning process — so that you can replicate it independently during timed practice and on test day.

---

Passage 1: Science and Health

"A large-scale study published in the British Medical Journal in 2023 examined the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and mental health outcomes. The study, which followed 18,000 adults over eight years, found that participants in the highest quartile of ultra-processed food consumption were 31% more likely to be diagnosed with depression and 22% more likely to report anxiety symptoms compared to those in the lowest quartile.

The researchers controlled for a range of confounding factors, including socioeconomic status, physical activity levels, and pre-existing health conditions. However, they acknowledged that the observational nature of the study meant that a causal relationship could not be definitively established. They hypothesised that additives, preservatives, and the low nutritional quality of ultra-processed foods might contribute to neuroinflammation, which has been linked to depressive symptoms in previous research.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that dietary patterns may play a significant role in mental health. The authors recommended that public health guidelines should consider the mental health implications of ultra-processed food consumption, alongside the well-documented physical health risks."

Question 1 (TFC): "The study proved that eating ultra-processed food causes depression."

Step-by-step reasoning:

1. Identify the key claim: The statement claims a causal relationship ("causes") and uses the word "proved."
2. Locate relevant information: The passage says participants were "31% more likely to be diagnosed with depression" (association, not causation). Critically, the passage states: "the observational nature of the study meant that a causal relationship could not be definitively established."
3. Compare: The statement says "proved" and "causes." The passage explicitly says a causal relationship could NOT be established.

Answer: False. The passage directly contradicts the claim of proven causation.

Question 2 (TFC): "The researchers accounted for the participants' levels of physical activity."

1. Identify the key claim: The researchers controlled for physical activity.
2. Locate: "The researchers controlled for a range of confounding factors, including... physical activity levels."
3. Compare: "Accounted for" ≈ "controlled for" (valid paraphrase). Physical activity is explicitly listed.

Answer: True.

Question 3 (TFC): "Neuroinflammation is a known cause of depression."

1. Identify the key claim: Neuroinflammation causes depression (stated as established fact).
2. Locate: The passage says neuroinflammation "has been linked to depressive symptoms in previous research."
3. Compare: "Has been linked to" is not the same as "is a known cause of." The passage describes an association from previous research, not an established causal mechanism. Furthermore, this was presented as a hypothesis by the researchers.

Answer: Can't Tell. The passage suggests a link but does not confirm causation.

Question 4 (Free-text): "What is the main conclusion of the study?"

• A) Ultra-processed food should be banned due to its mental health effects
• B) Higher consumption of ultra-processed food is associated with worse mental health outcomes
• C) Depression is primarily caused by poor diet
• D) Physical activity does not protect against the mental health effects of ultra-processed food

Reasoning:

• A is too extreme — the study makes no recommendation about banning food
• B accurately captures the main finding — an association (not causation) between ultra-processed food consumption and mental health outcomes
• C over-generalises — the study does not claim diet is the primary cause
• D is not addressed — the study controlled for physical activity but did not test its protective effect

Answer: B.

---

Passage 2: Social Policy

"Universal Basic Income (UBI) — a regular, unconditional cash payment to every citizen regardless of employment status — has been the subject of numerous pilot programmes worldwide. A two-year trial in Finland, conducted between 2017 and 2018, provided 2,000 unemployed individuals with €560 per month. The trial found that recipients reported significantly higher levels of life satisfaction and mental wellbeing compared to a control group, but the effect on employment rates was negligible — UBI recipients were no more likely to find employment than those who received standard unemployment benefits.

Supporters of UBI argue that the Finnish trial demonstrates the potential of unconditional payments to improve quality of life without creating a 'welfare trap'. Critics, however, point out that the trial's scope was too limited to draw meaningful conclusions: it involved only unemployed participants, lasted only two years, and was conducted in a country with an already comprehensive social safety net. They argue that results from Finland cannot be generalised to countries with weaker welfare systems.

A separate trial in Stockton, California, provided $500 per month to 125 randomly selected residents for 24 months. Unlike the Finnish trial, this programme included both employed and unemployed participants. Results showed that full-time employment among recipients actually increased from 28% to 40% during the trial period."

Question 1 (TFC): "The Finnish UBI trial demonstrated that basic income payments increase employment."

1. Key claim: UBI increased employment (in the Finnish trial).
2. Locate: "The effect on employment rates was negligible — UBI recipients were no more likely to find employment than those who received standard unemployment benefits."
3. Compare: The passage says employment effects were negligible. The statement claims they increased employment.

Answer: False.

Question 2 (TFC): "The Stockton trial was larger than the Finnish trial."

1. Key claim: The Stockton trial had more participants.
2. Locate: Finland: 2,000 participants. Stockton: 125 participants.
3. Compare: 125 < 2,000.

Answer: False. The Stockton trial was smaller.

Question 3 (TFC): "Critics believe that UBI would not work in countries with less developed welfare systems."

1. Key claim: Critics think UBI would not work in weaker welfare states.
2. Locate: "They argue that results from Finland cannot be generalised to countries with weaker welfare systems."
3. Compare: The critics argue that the Finnish results cannot be generalised — but this does not mean they believe UBI "would not work" in those countries. They are questioning the generalisability of the evidence, not making a prediction about UBI's effectiveness elsewhere.

Answer: Can't Tell. The critics question whether the evidence transfers; they do not explicitly claim UBI would fail.

Question 4 (Free-text): "What was a key difference between the Finnish and Stockton UBI trials?"

• A) The Finnish trial provided a larger monthly payment
• B) The Stockton trial lasted longer than the Finnish trial
• C) The Stockton trial included employed participants whereas the Finnish trial did not
• D) The Finnish trial was conducted in a developing country

Reasoning:

• A: Finland €560, Stockton $500 — roughly similar, and we cannot compare currencies directly; but more importantly, the passage does not highlight this as a key difference
• B: Both were approximately 24 months (Finland: 2017–2018 = two years; Stockton: 24 months) — not a key difference
• C: The passage explicitly states "Unlike the Finnish trial, this programme included both employed and unemployed participants." This is the stated difference.
• D: Finland is not a developing country

Answer: C.

---

Passage 3: Philosophy and Ethics