SajjadAhmad
The recent surge in fear over the virulence of the Ebola virus is irrational and unfounded. While in 1996 only 66 deaths worldwide were directly attributed to Ebola, some 603 deaths were caused by the influenza virus in the United States alone in that same year. Yet no such hysteria has surrounded influenza, despite the significantly higher number of fatalities.
Which of the following pieces of information would be most useful in evaluating the logic of the argument presented above?
A. The geographical distribution of deaths directly attributable to the Ebola virus
B. The incubation periods for a range of tropical viral diseases
C. The probable cause of an outbreak of infection by the influenza virus in selected regions of the United States
D. The relative survival rates for individuals infected with the Ebola virus and for those infected with the influenza virus
E. The numbers of deaths attributable to other, non-viral diseases with similar origins
So first think to notice is the argument is talking about recent times vs 1966 which is fine. But then it is mentioning number of deaths caused by Ebola vs influenza.
Option A. It will help understand better but for the deaths caused by influenza the argument says United States only so there is a possibility that deaths were worldwide and we don't know yet. Also just the number of deaths doesn't suffice.
B. Not a strong argument. Will visit later.
C. While it will help me understand why US had so many deaths caused by the virus I really cannot compare the 2 just by that.
D. If 44 survived out of 1000 and if 1 survived out of 1000 then that will definitely help me evaluate what is more plausible and what is not.
E. Similar origins is not talking about the argument directly.
IMO D