The answer is E. Let me tell you why.
Premise 1: For every 40 cats that contract a particular ear infection, one will die from it.
Premise 2: Scientists have discovered a vaccine that is almost 100 percent effective in preventing this infection.
Conclusion: As the risk of death from complications of vaccination is only one death per 1000 vaccinations, it is, therefore, safer for a cat to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.
Understanding: 1 in 40 cats die if they have this PARTICULAR infection. There is a vaccine for this. 1 in 1000 will die if the cats are given the vaccine. Therefore, SAFER to receive the vaccine than not to receive it. Focus on particular. What if the chances of 40 cats having this particular infection is 1 in a million? Vaccinating every cat and causing 1 in every 1000 to die is kind of morbid.
Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
A. The total number of cats that die each year from all causes taken together
- Incorrect. Focus is on this particular infection. Anything else is out of scope.B. Whether the vaccine is effective against the infection in household pets other than cats
- Incorrect. Pets are not even discussed in the stimulus, so, discussing household pets and the effect of this vaccine on them irrelevant. C. The number of cats that die each year from infections other than the infection in question
- Irrelevant. We only care about the particular infection and its vaccine.D. The likelihood that a cat will contract another infection such as fungal rash
- Incorrect. Extremely irrelevant. Fungal rash? Outlandish.E. The number of cats that will contract the infection in a year
. - Correct. Due to reason mentioned above.