The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in

Question

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.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

A. Only public schools require immunization.
B. Children are not already properly immunized.
C. If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
D. Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
E. Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

hemanthp · Accepted Answer

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.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

I liked this question and want to see the reasons why you all think the choices are wrong or right.

"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." (This use of the Kaplan Denial Test—a concept we'll take up in the Challenge Workshop—demonstrates that (B) is not a necessary assumption.)

(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.

KarishmaB · Answer

This is a trick used by GMAT. What you need to understand for these questions is the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.

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. That nothing else is needed. He says, "When all children are properly immunized,  we will be able to ensure  their health." That is his incorrect assumption. Answer is (E)

Let me come to 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.

Werewolf · Answer

___________________
Why not B, Karishma?

kartik222 · Answer

Hi all,

I find this question not trick but poorly worded.

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.

One interpretation of question is what you guys have discussed above. According to that E is the answer. However, look at the highlighted text above. This could be a potential interpretation. Premise states about immunization is public school and then they say if "all children". This can mean they are assuming all the children are in public school and hence leads to assumption as answer A "Only public schools require immunization."

can any expert throw some light on my interpretation and tell me if I my understanding is wrong.

thank you!
-k

amma4u · Answer

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

and this will not keep good health.

KarishmaB · Answer

An assumption is a missing  necessary  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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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 ...'

Archit143 · Answer

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.

Vineetk · Answer

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??

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

divineacclivity · Answer

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

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

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.

src_saurav · Answer

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

KarishmaB · 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.

Helium · Answer

"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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in

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

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in

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