Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa

In the highlighted statement, the conclusion “no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children” is based on fact that since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
However, the fact is limited only to children. What about adults? What if they develop serious complication from influenza spread by a child? Note the fact is that children ‘seldom develop serious complications’; they still may catch influenza and spread it, resulting in an adult developing serious complication from it.
So to assert that no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children, primary assumption is that Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
Hence Ans D.

Im not able to understand how to conclude to the OA, could someone please provide insights.

Hi chetan2u / daagh ,

Please help me in this question. I am not able to negate E.

Breaking down argument-
Fact 1. Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.
Fact 2. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections.
Fact 3. But adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated.
Fact 4. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children.

Until now only facts are given. Now
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray. WHY
Because (Premise)- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza


Now lets read it in reverse manner-

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- ______________________________________
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

So now we need to fill this gap to this make argument strong.

__________________________________________________________

Option D-

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Negating D- Adults do notcontract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Option D makes the argument strong PERFECT. Hence OA.

__________________________________________________________

Now lets look at option E as well
Before that I would like to clarify that in option E where "MOT" is written actually its "NOT"
Some people tried to change it with "MOST" But its wrong


A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza

GAP- The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults

Negating E- The nasal spray vaccine is noteffective when administered to adults[

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Therefore, No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.


This option is also working fine.
Where is my reasoning wrong..

Please assist.

Hi Prakhar,

let me touch only on E..

as written by you..


you have your PREMISE and CONCLUSION talking of CHILDREN, but the gap you are talking of is concerning ONLY ADULTS..
the gap/assumption has to be something related in some way to CHILDREN..
Irrespective of MOST or NOT, the problem is that the choice is unable to fill the gap as argument is about CHILDREN
and chice D tells us that ADULTS do not catch influenza from children. Thus CHILDREN has been a part of thi schoice..

Conclusion :- "no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray".

The conclusion of the argument is that there is no significant health benefit from administering the nasal vaccine to kids. The evidence offered is that kids are not at risk from serious complications. The argument is assuming that this is the only problem that could be addressed by the vaccine. D presents another problem: adults, who suffer from serious complications from influenza, primarily get it from kids.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
Negating D :- Adults do contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.{So, if adults are getting contracted influenza via children then widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray will bring significant benefit to public health, hence shattering the conslusion.}

E. The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Negating E :- The nasal spray vaccine is effective when administered to adults.{It doesn't get related to conslusion from any where}.

Option D is correct.

Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children. However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
This is a strengthener. Good to know. But it does not directly attack the conclusion, which is regarding the SIGNIFICANT HEALTH BENEFITS. As its not a necessary condition for the argument to hold, therefore, its not an assumption.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
I picked D as the correct answer.
On negating this option statement, the argument breaks.

Can someone elaborate more on the option A statement?

abhimahna, can you please review my explanation for option A? You can even add more on to that, if I am missing something for option A.

Hi aceGMAT21 ,

Here is the catch:

A is actually not a strengthener.

Conclusion is "no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray."

In short, even if you give them nasal spray, you won't have any benefit.

A is saying "Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.". What relation does it have with health benefits? Are we saying they will get health benefits from one or the other? No, right? Hence, your reasoning for A is incorrect.

Does that make sense?

If adults contracts the disease from children, we better make sure we vaccinate the kids.
In science this is called herd immunity.

Hence the answer (D)

Pre-thinking --> If we prove that there are other benefits of vaccinating kids.

(A) Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal spray vaccine as well.
Yes, so?

(B) The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.
Ok, and?

(C) The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
Yes, so?

(D) Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
There we go. Finally which tells me that there is a benefit to vaccinating kids, so that adults can't contract --> leading to complications.

(E) The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Adults don't mind the pain.

Conclusion: no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray
Prethink: No significant PUBLIC health benefit overall? Children may “seldom develop serious complications form influenza,” but what if they carry the disease and pass it along to other people? If it’s really not a public health benefit (for children to get vaccinated), this is probably not true. Look for something like this.

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
Out of scope – this distinction doesn’t matter. We want to see the implications with CHILDREN not receiving vaccination and how that’s okay with the public. The distinction between the two vaccines doesn’t have any immediate/direct impact to the conclusion.

B. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.
Out of scope – HOW these vaccines work isn’t within the scope of this conclusion. We want to see the implications with CHILDREN not receiving vaccination and how that’s okay with the public.

C. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
Out of scope – price is out of scope.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
Bingo! Matches the prethink. This removes the possibility about children passing along the disease.

E. The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Out of scope again. We want to see the implications with CHILDREN not receiving vaccination and how that’s okay with the public.

The concl. is no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Therefore, the answer should be saying that if the children don't take the vaccine, they will not harm anybody.

D choice is the only one saying that!

One point i wanted to mention is D is referring to "ALL" adults

D if negated, All adults get influenza from kids

Now for the adults (who are risk of serious complications) -- it may not be a big deal if they get influenza from the kids. Why ? Because these adults (who are risk of serious compications) do get vaccinated

But what about adults (who ARE NOT AT risk of serious complications) -- they don't get vaccines for the influenze

Hence you will adults (who are NOT AT RISK of serious complications) -- all getting influenza ...Will these adults (who are NOT AT RISK of serious complications) die ? Perhaps not but they will CLOG UP the hospitals as they will certainly check into hospitals

CLOGGING up the hospitals is a public health benefit

Injections against COVID are available. Parents of children are reluctant to give their kids injections because the injections do hurt

Adults who are obese (at serious risk from COVID complications) are frequently vaccinated.

Nasal spray vaccine for kids –it is effective to stop COVID in kids.

However, since kids don’t develop any serious complications from COVID --> no point in giving them the nasal spray vaccine.

Negated Option D)
All Adults develop influenza from kids.

Now for OBESE adults – it may not be a big deal even if these OBESE adults get influenza (these OBESE adults have gotten the vaccine after all)

But what about OTHER adults: non-obese adults will get influenza and these non-obese adults WILL then go to the hospital (maybe these non-obese adults WONT die, but then these non-obese adults will clog up the hospitals)

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.