For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one will die from i

What is the problem with option D? The passage concludes that vaccination is safer but doesn't conclude anything about the reduction of death toll. So if the rabbies is the side effect then vaccination is not safer. So it is an important information required for the argument.
Please let me know what I missed to understand?

Posted from my mobile device

You are assuming that the side effects will be > the benefits ...

However take into consideration the last sentence " it is therefore safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it. " The speaker talks about vaccination as a form of preventive measure....

Thanks Abhisek. I understand why option E is right. But I don't get why D is wrong. If Rabbies is the side effect of the vaccination, then it is an important information for the argument right?

Is it that option E is better than D and hence we chose E?

Posted from my mobile device

rashwiniyer, It's great that you know why Option E is correct.
Let's have a 2nd look at OptionD:

(D) the likelihood that a dog will contract another disease such as rabies
Even if the dog catches another disease such as rabies, do we know, for sure, from the argument that Rabbies is the side effect of the vaccination?

You have causated two completely different correlated events:

Vaccination and Catching Rabies.

Moreover, we have absolutely NO idea what's the death rate of dogs affected with rabies.
Maybe, the death rate of dogs affected with rabies is insignificant enough to EVEN make a mark: let's say less than 1 in 10000.

To even consider OptionD, a batch of further assumptions needs to in the picture.
Thus, OptionD is not irrelevant but highly dicey at best.

From manhattan prep's website:

"Here's the argument core:

Premise: 1/50 dogs who contract a disease die.
Premise: A vaccine is almost 100% effective in preventing the disease.
Premise: The risk of death from the vaccine is 1/5000.
Conclusion: It is safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not.


It's easy to focus on the facts that we're given and not notice what we haven't been told. The first premise only tells us what happens to dogs who contract the disease. We have no idea how likely it is for a dog to contract the disease. What if any given dog has a 1/1,000,000 chance of contracting the disease? If that's true, receiving the vaccine is not safer. This is why choice (E) is correct: that information could very directly tell us whether it's safer for a dog to get the vaccine or not.

Choice (C) is tempting, but it doesn't address the difference between receiving the vaccine or not receiving it as directly as choice (E) does."