GWD-1-40 再问 E更对？

yu208864

Until mow, 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?

1. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
   
           
2. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as jnjectable vaccines do.
   
           
3. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
   
           
4. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
   
           
5. The nasal spray vaccine is mot effective when administered to adults.

　答案是D. 可E不是更对吗？取非后更能使原文结论错误。原文说药对小孩没　　用，但如果对大人有用，不就是这个药有用吗？所谓的答案D，好像更是无关选项。

yaoyao99

The conclusion talks about the usefulness of "vaccination of children using the nasal spray".  E is a digression. 

maryheliu

如果adult得了病的话，有injectable vaccines可用。所以即使adult的病也有药可治啊，除非小孩和大人的症状不同，或者药用不同，要不然，我觉得没有weaken的效果啊。

请给予帮助，不知道是不是我脑子秀逗了，谢谢

maryheliu

能更好地解释下么？谢谢！

maryheliu

能有人更好地解释下么，谢谢啦

zlily424

The new influenza vaccine is only effective for childeren.since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, therefore, the author draws the conclusion that no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray. But in drawing the conclusion, the author omits the possibility that adults would get influenza from children, which is normally the case in real life. So, if children use the new influenza vaccine and do not develop influenza, adults would benefit from it and do not develop influenza from children. Therefore, significant public health benefit would still result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spry.

Koror

Agree with D but D and E seem vague

qiyuxingyuan

The explanation, offered by "6 floor", why the answer should be D  is accurate.Perhaps, another less important question is that "the new influenza vaccine is effective for childeren" is a given premise or a fact, and we cannot get any reasonable conclusion  by denying a fact in an argument when we try to solve a GMAT logic question. So, Choice E is not correct

毛妖妖