Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.They have been used primarily by older adults, who are at risk for complications from influenza.A new vaccine administered in a nasal spray（鼻用喷剂） has proven effective in preventing influenza in children.Since children are significantly more likely than adults to contract and spread influenza, making the new vaccine widely available for children will greatly reduce the spread of influenza across the population.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. If a person receives both the injectable and the nasal-spray vaccine, the two vaccines do not interfere with each other.
B. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off防止 influenza as injectable vaccines do.
C. Government subsidies have kept the injectable vaccine affordable for all older adults.
D. Of the older adults who contract influenza, relatively few contract it from children with influenza.
E. Many parents would be more inclined to have their children vaccinated against influenza if the vaccination did not require an injection.
不知这样解释是否能够回答你的问题作者: jessiecg 时间: 2010-9-20 13:53
不知道可不可以这样理解。。。 D说大人不会从小孩子这里传染这个病，前文又说大人可以用打得疫苗，所以间接可以说防止整个的蔓延 但E说大人愿意让小孩子用NS，所以E比D更有加强作用。。作者: vivianzhili 时间: 2010-9-30 13:22
我是菜鸟，，我感觉这题的结论一定要仔细看清 那就是对小孩使用新的鼻雾喷剂 对 across the propulation 的感冒扩散都有利。 ACROSS the population 包括大人和小孩
看D 选项，大人很少能从小孩那里传染到感冒。对小孩使用鼻雾喷剂 并不能降低大人传染感冒的几率。 大人可能感冒的几率不变或更多。 那么对结论across the population 不能起到加强的作用。作者: 小混球 时间: 2011-11-1 14:59
这道题不是比较两种方式哪个更有效的，而是加强措施能达到目的的。作者: shirryzhan 时间: 2012-7-23 17:51 Premise: Children are more likely to contract and spread influenza
, meanwhile, the nasal spray is effective for children
Conclusion: Recommanding the spray for children widely is good for public health.
This question emphasizes on recommending the new spray in chilren is good for health. But why?
Because parents are willing to have chilren vaccinated with this new spray, which does not require injection, chilren would be less likely to become the origin of influenza, which would contract to adults. So it would make public health. 作者: ninamikou 时间: 2012-7-25 11:28
我认为D是在weaken 而E是在strengthen 看看stimulus的 conclusion:"Since children are significantly more likely than adults to contract and spread influenza, making the new vaccine widely available for children will greatly reduce the spread of influenza across the population." 因为小孩更容易得influenza 所以新型的vaccine有用（得病的人更少） 选项D：大人很少从小孩这里得病传染。所以即使用了新型的vaccine 得病的人数也不会减少很多（对大人没影响） 相反 E选项：家长都愿意孩子接受疫苗如果它不是注射式的话。--> 新疫苗不是注射式，符合家长的requirement，所以等多的孩子将会得到疫苗注射，并且因为孩子更容易传染，所以受感染的总人数会下降，conclusion"will greatly reduce the spread of influenza across the population."得到fulfill作者: linyunhui91 时间: 2012-9-16 15:02
楼上这个思路好作者: 毛阿伦 时间: 2012-9-16 19:45
6楼说的很对！加强措施促使目的达成
OG 中也有这样的题，讲一种本地鱼被外来物影响，为了能够track这个外来物，政府制作卡片给当地的人。 问加强：
答案是：当地钓鱼的人愿意在看到这样的鱼后上报
是一个道理，通过加强措施促使目的达成作者: evanxie9669 时间: 2012-9-16 20:16
will greatly reduce the spread of influenza across the population. 这个才是结论，D是在削弱啊作者: spx1469 时间: 2012-9-17 21:24
嗯，觉得8楼的思路不错作者: qy111 时间: 2012-10-9 21:44
B呢？求解答作者: tu-yu 时间: 2020-9-4 20:55
可以理解为 取非削弱？“人们得流感的数量不一定会少啊” 确实是 但也没说会怎么变啊
如果选项D是说 大人得流感不会增多 就是正确选项了