Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A. Effect of using both methods for influenza is not mentioned anywhere in the passage and this is new assumption. - Eliminate B. Though it uses same mechanism what if children didn't take the dose? - Eliminate C. Out of Scope D. This has nothing to do with the conclusion - Eliminate E. As per E parents are allowed to have their children vaccinated against influenza only if it is not an injection. new method is a nasal spray. Parents will vaccinate their children. Therefore, influenza spread will reduce. - Correct
I'm with you reply2spg, it looks like the answer is E. I am assuming the OA is not D since it has nothing to do with the conclusion. The whole point is to ensure that this new vaccine reduces the spread, so reducing the affect on children greatly helps the overall spread.
Premise - New vaccine in form of nasal spray has proven effective in preventing influenza in children. Premise - Children are more likely to contract and spread influenza than older adults. Conclusion - The new vaccine will greatly reduce the spread of influenza in population.
D) Actually weakens the conclusion. If only few older adult contracts from children that means most of the older adults are contracting it from some other source. As a result the new vaccine will not greatly reduce the spread of influenza in population.
E) Actually supports the conclusion - More parents getting their children vaccinated using new vaccine. This is strengthening the conclusion.
Final decisions are in: Berkeley: Denied with interview Tepper: Waitlisted with interview Rotman: Admitted with scholarship (withdrawn) Random French School: Admitted to MSc in Management with scholarship (...