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

Question

For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one will die from it. A vaccine exists that is virtually 100 percent effective in preventing this disease. Since the risk of death from complications of vaccination is one death per 5,000 vaccinations, it is therefore safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.

Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? 
 
(A) the total number of dogs that die each year from all causes taken together

(B) whether the vaccine is effective against the disease in household pets other than dogs

(C) the number of dogs that die each year from diseases other than the disease in question

(D) the likelihood that a dog will contract another disease such as rabies

(E) the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease in question

chetan2u · Answer

For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one will die from it. A vaccine exists that is virtually 100 percent effective in preventing this disease. Since the risk of death from complications of vaccination is one death per 5,000 vaccinations, it is therefore safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.

The para states 1 out of 50 dogs that contract a certain disease will die. If the dogs are vaccinated, these1 life can be saved, but the process of vaccination can lead to 1 death in 5000 vaccination.So we are talking of TWO different groups, one talkso f all dogs and other talks of just the dogs with the disease.
There has to be something connecting these two groups.

Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? 
 
(A) the total number of dogs that die each year from all causes taken together 
(B) whether the vaccine is effective against the disease in household pets other than dogs 
(C) the number of dogs that die each year from diseases other than the disease in question 
(D) the likelihood that a dog will contract another disease such as rabies 
 All the above choices talk of some other disease or different groups, so shifts the scope of th equestion, and, therefore, are not likely to help in evaluating the argument.

(E) the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease in question
 Now, this choice talks of bridging the gap. Say chances of dogs contracting the disease is 1 in 1000 dogs, so there will be 1 death in 50*1000 or 50,000 dogs, while there is a chance of 1 in 5000 during vaccinations. So, it is better without vaccinations.
But say 1 out of every 10 dog is likely to contract disease, so there will be 1 death in 50*10 or 500 dogs, while there is a chance of 1 in 5000 during vaccinations. So, it is better with vaccinations.

E

rraman · Answer

For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one will die from it. A vaccine exists that is virtually 100 percent effective in preventing this disease. Since the risk of death from complications of vaccination is one death per 5,000 vaccinations, it is therefore safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.

Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument? 
 
 --- Out of Scope

-- Out of scope

-- out of scope

-- Correct,   Just try to negate it, if say out of 100 unvaccinated dogs all of them will contract the disease then one of them will die, thus it strengthens the conclusion that we need to Vaccinate them, Now in other case if say out of 100 unvaccinated dogs 0 dog contract the disease then there is no need of Vaccination thus this weakens the conclusion

rashwiniyer · Answer

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

Abhishek009 · Answer

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....

rashwiniyer · Answer

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

XyLan · Answer

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.

NA08 · Answer

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."

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards