It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 05:24

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Wharton R1 | Stanford R1 | Tuck R1 | Ross R1 | Haas R1


Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 12

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2014, 12:31
Im not able to understand how to conclude to the OA, could someone please provide insights. :x

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 12

5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 107 [5], given: 43

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2014, 22:35
5
This post received
KUDOS
haneefmrn wrote:
Im not able to understand how to conclude to the OA, could someone please provide insights. :x

Premise 1: injectable vaccines are painful so Parents do not vaccine the child.However, Adults who have serious complications are commonly vaccinated.
Premise 2: A new influenza vaccine is painless and can be used to vaccine children.

Conclusion: As children rarely develop serious complication, there is no health benefit for this new vaccination.

The conclusion is quite strong in that There is NO health benefit for this medicine.It means it doesn't help at all but the stated reason is only for children (they seldom develop serious complications) but what about adults ?
As this is an assumption question , we need to fill a gap between premise and conclusion.

Now the options:-
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
Incorrect: Irrelevant.Conclusion is regarding health benefits.Argument doesn't compare the safety of any of the vaccines.
B. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as jnjectable vaccines do.
Incorrect: Irrelevant.Argument is about the health benefits of the vaccine not the mechanism by which it achieves that.
C. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
Incorrect: Irrelevant.Argument is about the health benefits of the vaccine not its cost
D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
Correct: Lets negate it.if Adults do contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza, then we need to vaccinate the children otherwise Adults will contract.So there are health benefits for this vaccine.
As described above.if this option is not true, then Argument is not true.Hence it is the necessary assumption.

E. The nasal spray vaccine is mot effective when administered to adults.
Incorrect: Out of scope.Argument doesn't compare the effectiveness of any vaccine.If we take this option as true, It weakens the conclusion because if it is most effective then there will be benefits of this medicine.

Press Kudos if it helps :)
_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Kudos [?]: 107 [5], given: 43

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 22:02
Adults – use injectable vaccines
Kids – new influenza vaccine nasal spray bec parents don’t want pain for children

Nasal spray – no public health benefit since children do not usually develop serious complications from influenza

In any Assumption CR question, think of the answer choice as a missing piece that completes the puzzle. For the conclusion to make sense, the below will have to be necessary. ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON_____

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal spray vaccine as well.
- This is not something that the argument depends on. If anything, it’s otherwise. If this was something that the argument depends on, then it could be used for adults, which then suggests that there can be a public health benefit in this, which attacks the conclusion
B. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.
- Same reasoning as above
C. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
- Argument does not hinge on the affordability of the product
D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
- This is correct. This suggests that there is indeed no public benefit for nasal sprays since influenza for adults can only be treated with injectable vaccines and not the nasal spray. Supports the conclusion and the premise
E. The nasal spray vaccine is most effective when administered to adults.
- Argument does not depend on this.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 13

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Posts: 39

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2015, 16:54
OA IS "D", JUST BECAUSE, REST WERE MORE OR LESS OUT OF SCOPE....
CONFUSED THOUGH ....
_________________

kinaare paaon phailane lage hian,
nadi se roz mitti kat rahi hai....

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2016, 21:30
Hi chetan2u / daagh ,

Please help me in this question. I am not able to negate E.

Breaking down argument-
Fact 1. Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.
Fact 2. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections.
Fact 3. But adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated.
Fact 4. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children.

Until now only facts are given. Now
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray. WHY
Because (Premise)- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza


Now lets read it in reverse manner-

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- ______________________________________
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

So now we need to fill this gap to this make argument strong.

__________________________________________________________

Option D-

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Negating D- Adults do notcontract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Option D makes the argument strong PERFECT. Hence OA.

__________________________________________________________

Now lets look at option E as well
Before that I would like to clarify that in option E where "MOT" is written actually its "NOT"
Some people tried to change it with "MOST" But its wrong


A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza

GAP- The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults

Negating E- The nasal spray vaccine is noteffective when administered to adults[

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Therefore, No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.


This option is also working fine.
Where is my reasoning wrong..

Please assist.
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
D
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 5347

Kudos [?]: 6125 [2], given: 121

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2016, 21:44
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
PrakharGMAT wrote:
Hi chetan2u / daagh ,

Please help me in this question. I am not able to negate E.

Breaking down argument-
Fact 1. Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.
Fact 2. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections.
Fact 3. But adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated.
Fact 4. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children.

Until now only facts are given. Now
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray. WHY
Because (Premise)- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza


Now lets read it in reverse manner-

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- ______________________________________
Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

So now we need to fill this gap to this make argument strong.

__________________________________________________________

Option D-

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
GAP- Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Negating D- Adults do notcontract influenza primarily from children who have influenza

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Option D makes the argument strong PERFECT. Hence OA.

__________________________________________________________

Now lets look at option E as well
Before that I would like to clarify that in option E where "MOT" is written actually its "NOT"
Some people tried to change it with "MOST" But its wrong


A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza

GAP- The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults

Negating E- The nasal spray vaccine is noteffective when administered to adults[

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children
since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza
The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Therefore, No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.


This option is also working fine.
Where is my reasoning wrong..

Please assist.


Hi Prakhar,

let me touch only on E..

as written by you..

Quote:
A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children

Premise- since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza

GAP- The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults

Negating E- The nasal spray vaccine is noteffective when administered to adults[

Conclusion- No significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray


you have your PREMISE and CONCLUSION talking of CHILDREN, but the gap you are talking of is concerning ONLY ADULTS..
the gap/assumption has to be something related in some way to CHILDREN..
Irrespective of MOST or NOT, the problem is that the choice is unable to fill the gap as argument is about CHILDREN
and chice D tells us that ADULTS do not catch influenza from children. Thus CHILDREN has been a part of thi schoice..

_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 6125 [2], given: 121

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2015
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2016, 21:50
Thanks chetan2u
I got your point. Yes, you are right that we can't completely disown CHILDREN from our answer.
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Prakhar

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 79

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 9

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2016, 00:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
I'm still confused
Assuming that adults DO contract influenza from children who have influenza, the new vaccine still will not have a significant public health benefit since according to premise, adults are commonly vaccinated already?
am i missing or wrongly assuming something?
Please help to clarify!!

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 9

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 689

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 855

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2017, 22:15
Conclusion :- "no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray".

The conclusion of the argument is that there is no significant health benefit from administering the nasal vaccine to kids. The evidence offered is that kids are not at risk from serious complications. The argument is assuming that this is the only problem that could be addressed by the vaccine. D presents another problem: adults, who suffer from serious complications from influenza, primarily get it from kids.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
Negating D :- Adults do contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.{So, if adults are getting contracted influenza via children then widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray will bring significant benefit to public health, hence shattering the conslusion.}

E. The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
Negating E :- The nasal spray vaccine is effective when administered to adults.{It doesn't get related to conslusion from any where}.

Option D is correct.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 855

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 812

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 32

Premium Member
Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2017, 21:45
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 32

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 154

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 89

Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2017, 01:44
Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children. However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
This is a strengthener. Good to know. But it does not directly attack the conclusion, which is regarding the SIGNIFICANT HEALTH BENEFITS. As its not a necessary condition for the argument to hold, therefore, its not an assumption.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
I picked D as the correct answer.
On negating this option statement, the argument breaks.

Can someone elaborate more on the option A statement?

abhimahna, can you please review my explanation for option A? You can even add more on to that, if I am missing something for option A.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 89

Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2863

Kudos [?]: 968 [0], given: 69

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2017, 02:30
aceGMAT21 wrote:
Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children. However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
This is a strengthener. Good to know. But it does not directly attack the conclusion, which is regarding the SIGNIFICANT HEALTH BENEFITS. As its not a necessary condition for the argument to hold, therefore, its not an assumption.

D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
I picked D as the correct answer.
On negating this option statement, the argument breaks.

Can someone elaborate more on the option A statement?

abhimahna, can you please review my explanation for option A? You can even add more on to that, if I am missing something for option A.



Hi aceGMAT21 ,

Here is the catch:

A is actually not a strengthener.

Conclusion is "no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray."

In short, even if you give them nasal spray, you won't have any benefit.

A is saying "Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.". What relation does it have with health benefits? Are we saying they will get health benefits from one or the other? No, right? Hence, your reasoning for A is incorrect.

Does that make sense?
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

Kudos [?]: 968 [0], given: 69

Re: Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa   [#permalink] 27 Oct 2017, 02:30

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been availa

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.