rs47
Just a small doubt I had about option D.. This option talks about citizens over the age of 80.. The other priority group for the vaccines is children under the age of 12, a group which is not discussed in the option.. Hence, it is quite possible that the number of cases of serious complications from influenza could still be reduced (atleast in the case of children under the age of 12)..
Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere..
Cheers :)
Hi, I am no expert but let me give it a try.
The premise says that BOTH the groups are vulnerable. Yes, some children below the age of 12 will be saved but what about the other priority group. The premise doesn't make a distinction between 80+ and below 12 age groups. I considers BOTH the groups EQUALLY as priority groups.
Now if you want to weaken the argument, you must weaken the conclusion and NOT the premise, since a premise is always correct. In a strengthen/weaken question a correct answer choice can either weakly strengthen/weaken or strongly strengthen/weaken the argument. Albeit option D talks about only 80+ age group, it is definitely weakening the argument, since if 80+ people won't be vaccinated then the nation will suffer a DOUBLE BLOW.
1. Majority of 80+ people won't get vaccinated.
2. This vaccine could have been given to the people in the 12 - 80 age group.
Thus, even if this option doesn't talk about the other priority group, it definitely weakens the argument.
Hope that helps :)
Please correct me if you find anything susceptible.
Regards