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:
Re: My American friend and I have been arguing for 2 days...Pls [#permalink]
24 Sep 2012, 10:23
I got stuck up with A and B but eliminating B is very easy since nothing in the argument is mentioned about the revenue from livestock business or any such issue which can give a clue for this answer to be true. But keeping in mind the principle of strengthening it becomes easy to go with A. Look for an option that removes the possibility of another alternative. Concl Consumption of vaccine will increase .........Ask why to it......If 2nd system eradicate the fever is not helpful......Hence Option A wins E can be eliminated at first sight as it says about climatic condition the impact of which is not at all discussed in the argument.
Re: Outbreaks of Rift Valley fever occur irregularly in East [#permalink]
26 Jul 2013, 08:42
This post received KUDOS
Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this one. Thanks!
Vaccine's drawbacks: I)It is too expensive II)It is not effective until a month after vaccination
Nevertheless, experts predict that use of the vaccine will increase significantly within the next few years.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the experts’ prediction?
What answer are we looking for? It will be something that will eliminate a current defect of the vaccine, or will be an advantage that will balance everything: like "has been found that the vaccine makes the cattle immune to every type of disease and increases its reproductivity rate"(I'm making this up).
A. Rift Valley fever is spread by mosquitoes, but each outbreak is so widespread that it is impractical to control it by using insecticides. Irrelevant. B. When an outbreak of Rift Valley fever occurs, unaffected countries often refuse to import livestock from the countries affected by the outbreak. Maybe... this could be seen as an advantage to use the vaccine, because revenues for the farmers could be lower if they do not use it. We can keep it for now... C. It would take less than a month for producers of the vaccine to adjust their production operations to cope with a large increase in demand. Irrelevant because it does not offer an argument like those described above. D. Many cattle farmers in East Africa are nomadic or live in remote villages, and such farmers, who have little access to modern veterinary medicine, are particularly hard hit by outbreaks of Rift Valley fever. This is just a fact that has no impact on the prediction. E. Recently published research has shown that certain identifiable climatic conditions are almost invariably followed, within two to five months, by an outbreak of Rift Valley fever. This seems good as well because undermines the drawback #2. If we can predict an outbreak two months before, the vaccine (that takes one month to be effective) could be used more than today.
B and E are the contenders. I would look at the key words there to determine the correct answer. B unaffected countries often refuse<== so the fact that B presents has already happened before, so it's not something that could change the current scenario and increase the use of the vaccine. E. Recently published research<== this is a game changer. Recently new data has been released, so the situation described by the argument is actually changed.
E is the best answer
It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.