Can someone provide a detailed analysis on this one. Thanks!
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.
Kant , Critique of Pure Reason
Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant
Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]