To determine which idea the evidence from the text supports, it's essential to analyze the context of Nellie Bly's undercover work and any responses from psychiatrists.
If the text highlights the response of psychiatrists to the exposure of their practices, it may indicate an understanding of the negative implications of poor patient treatment or a desire to protect their reputation. If it discusses their attempts to restrict information or downplay their practices, it could support the idea that they were trying to stop information from reaching the public.
Here's a breakdown of the ideas:
-
If the psychiatrists seem reactive or worried about how they are perceived, the first idea about "damage control" might be supported.
-
If the text shows them trying to actively suppress information, the second idea would hold.
-
If the text reflects a disregard for patients, suggesting they view them as nuisances, then the third idea is valid.
-
The fourth idea about being overwhelmed might only be supported if evidence suggests the psychiatrists couldn’t manage their duties due to a high patient volume.
Without the specific excerpt mentioned, I recommend selecting the idea most closely aligned with the responses and actions described in the text about the psychiatrists' reactions to Bly's investigation. If they seemed focused on image preservation, go with the first; if they were actively suppressing information, choose the second; if they seemed indifferent to patients, the third; if overwhelmed, the last.