The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in

IMO E

Argument "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health."


Only public schools require immunization. - Not related to the argument
Children are not already properly immunized. - Close but I would say it is not a required assumption because some may already be immunized and some may not be.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. - Out of Scope
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer. - Argument is about health not cost
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. - Perfect fit as argument says because of X then Y. Doesn't allow the counter of because of X and Z then Y

Premise: The govn't implemented the immunization in public schools despite its costs.
Premise: All children are properly immunized
Conclusion: We will be able to ensure children's health

The children's health can be ensured when they received proper immunization and they don't need other preventive methods.

Only public schools require immunization.--> Not relevant
Children are not already properly immunized. --> If children are not properly immunized, then now the gov't will provide them proper immunization. This is not the assumption the author based on to make conclusion
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. --> not relevant
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.--> not relevant
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. --> This is the assumption the author based on to make conclusion. Children may suffer certain disease through eating habits --> children's health cannot be ensured.
Therefore, my answer is E

3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

An assumption is a missing [highlight]necessary[/highlight] premise. The validity of author's conclusion is based on the validity of the assumption.

Conclusion: When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

In his conclusion, he is not assuming that children are not immunized. He is saying that if they are, they will be healthy. The validity of this conclusion is not based on whether children are already immunized or not.

If I were to negate the assumption in option (B) and say 'Children are already properly immunized', his conclusion doesn't fall apart. According to the author then, they are healthy.

You cannot interpret that all children study in public schools. The argument just tells you that public schools have made great strides. It goes on to say, 'When all children are properly ...' He doesn't say, 'This will ensure that all children are properly ...'
e.g. One says, 'Countries in Asia have made peace with their neighbors. When all countries make peace, the world will be a better place.' It doesn't imply that all countries are in Asia!
Also, the author says, 'When all children ...'
How is he assuming that only public schools require immunization? Even if we do incorrectly interpret that he means that all children are in public schools, he is still not assuming that only public schools require immunization. There could be many kids not going to school. He clearly says, 'When all children are ...'

Hi karishma

You have been posting excellent explanations for this question since 2010 almost 3 years..........

"Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children."

this is quoted from your above post.... Pls explain on the basis of the above quoted explanation, it means that If not immunized , they will not be immune to disease......Which is option C

Is it because of the transition in word " Health" to " Disease" that we consider the answer to be wrong or the negative answer...For rookie test takers like me..C and E are very closely placed...Difficult to understand implied meaning of both....In 2 min time its difficult to differentiate between the two..
Pls explain how to distinguish between C and E and eliminate option C.

Please clear my doubt.

In the argument, all the children refer to only public school children because if that's not the case then Kartik222 made a valid point. In the example provided by you, all the countries refer to countries in asia & their neighbours right??

I say, 'If you keep eating like this, you will not lose weight.'

What does this imply? That I believe that if you keep eating, you will not lose weight. What do you think I believe will happen if you don't eat like that? You can't say! I may believe that you will lose weight right away. I may believe that you will need to diet and exercise and then you will lose weight. I haven't said anything about what will happen if you don't eat like that. I have only told you what I believe will happen if you do keep eating like that.

The author says 'When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.'
He doesn't say what will happen when all children are not properly immunized. Perhaps he believes very few will fall sick or some will fall sick or many will fall sick etc.

whereas E clearly gives an assumption he is making. He says that when children are immunized, they will be healthy i.e. no other factors affect the health of the children. That immunization is enough to ensure the health.
Try to negate (E) - Immunization is not the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. You need other things too.

Can the author's conclusion still hold? No. He is concluding that immunization guarantees health.
When you negate E, the conclusion falls. Hence, it is the assumption.

No, it doesn't. It refers to children in general. The statement about public schools is only an example of something going on today. Only one example of efforts that are on to immunize children. It's an introduction to his argument. The conclusion is a generic statement 'when children are immmunized, we will be able to ensure their health.'

Don't forget what an assumption is - it is something the author believes in i.e. he is assuming it to be true even though he doesn't say it as such.

Dear Experts,

Could you please help me negate my reasons for selecting the wrong answers and please help me with understanding the right reasons to select the right answers.
My doubts are as stated below. Could you please help me clarify all of those?

1.
When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.
--> The author doesn't seem to mean immunization is the only & the sufficient criteria. He seems to say that immunization is a necessary criteria, e.g., if a doctor says "Taking the prescribed medicine is a must". He definitely doesn't mean to say that taking medicine is sufficient for the patient's recovery and he could start eating junk since medicine would cover for anything he does.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

2.
B) Children are not already properly immunized.
--> This sounded good to me because had all the children been properly immunized already, there was no point spending money on immunization. Since govt is spending heavy money on immunization, so, the govt. does think that it is yet to be done, e.g., if I feed my children food, I do so because I think they aren't fed already or atleast aren't already properly fed. If they already are, why would I stuff them again unnecessarily.


3.
D) Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
--> This also sounded to me like a good candidate because the argument says that the govt is spending a lot of money, so, they (govt.) must be of the view that immunization is effective enough to justify the expenditure.
But since B was directly attacking the argument, I chose B over D.


4.
E) Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.
--> Well, this didn't strike as an answer (assumption) because the author never said "immunization" is the ONLY or sufficient condition. He only meant "immunization" is a necessary criteria.


I really appreciate an expert's help on this. Thank you very much in advance.

- DA

I think you have messed up the question. Option (A) that you have discussed is a part of the argument. In fact, it is the conclusion of the argument.
The argument is this:

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

The author assumes that immunization is all that is necessary to "ensure their health". You might want to re-think the question now.

What is the main contention of the argument? Implementing immunization will ensure the health of all children. Hence if the children are immunized they would have no health issues. So this is a case of A causes B. Here the author assumes immunization is the only factor which ensures health and there are no other external factors involved. The venue is not the focus of the argument. In answer choice A it is mentioned "public school systems" . So its a system that has been referred. You can not negate it saying "not public schools but other schools too". Moreover like I said the venue is not the main focus of the argument.Hence A is not a necessary assumption.

My negation of C--> If immunised, most children will suffer from diseases. This ,clearly breaks the conclusion. Why is this nit the answer??

The negation of (C) is this:

If not immunized, most children will not fall victim to disease.

The main verb is negated so "will fall" will become "will not fall".

Here is why (C) is not the answer:

We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.

"Ensuring kids' health" is a pretty broad and ambitious agenda, but the author says that it's a reachable goal if all kids are properly immunized. He must be assuming that nothing else is needed to achieve the goal, and that makes (E) right.

The possibility that other institutions (A) and, inferably, other populations, might need to be immunized falls outside of the scope, which deals with the health of kids only. (B), while tempting, is not something the author is counting on to be true; if, contrary to (B), the author were to learn that all kids are immunized, he'd simply say "Great! So their health is ensured." (C) represents a common logical flaw. Yes, the author believes that immunization will ensure kids' health. That doesn't mean that lack of immunization will lead all to disease vulnerability. (D), meanwhile, goes way outside the scope in bringing in the cost issue, which is only a side note, not a major part of the logic.

Hi, I think there's a problem with E due to "only ", which really makes it tricky,maybe invalid.
if you negate, it doesnt do anything with conclusion. we assume there are other things nessessary: how can it break conclusion?
Thank you in advance!

CONCLUSION - When all children are properly immunised, we will be able to ensure their health

PRETHINKING -

IN WHAT SCENARIO - we will not be able to ensure the health of children despite immunization

GIVEN -

1) The govt has implemented immunization in public schools despite costt

FALSIFICATION QUESTION - Immunisation does not protect against diseases

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Irrelevant to conclusion
B) Whether children are immunised or not doesn't give the intended impact of immunisation
C) We can't assume anything for the children who are not immunised
D) Cost of taxpayer not relevant to conclusion
E) CORRECT