confuse mind wrote:In certain parts of rural Mongolia, many villagers suffer from fungal infections of the feet and toenails because of poor foot hygiene. Fungal foot infections can cause the need for eventual amputation if left untreated. In order to combat the problem of untreated fungal infections, the public health department in Mongolia distributed a pamphlet to rural villagers instructing them on how to perform weekly foot checks to detect fungal infections of the foot.

Which of the following, if true, is the best criticism of the[color=blue] pamphlet as a method of achieving the public health department's goal?[/color]

The question asks for the best criticism of pamphlet as a method.....

A. Once fungal infections of the foot have been detected, the effectiveness of treatment varies from person to person.
Does not mention any thing about pamphlet

B. The pamphlet was sent to all rural villagers, even those that practice good foot hygiene.
Cannot be sent to only those who have foot infection as dept does not know that

C. Fungal infections of the foot are much more common in men than in women, yet both sexes received the pamphlet.
Again is not a valid critisim to achieve the depts goal.

D. People who do not use proper hygiene to care for their feet are unlikely to perform weekly checks of their feet for fungal infections.
Does not show that pamphlet as a method had failed.

E. A previous pamphlet from the public health department of Mongolia that warned of the dangers of smoking met with limited success in all parts of Mongolia.
Correct response as it shows that "pamphlet as a method of achieving the goal (I.e combating the problem of untreated fungal infections) failed previously in a similar issue.
[spoiler]
Confused between D and E[/spoiler]