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?
Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.
The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.
情景:现在只有注射型的疫苗。父母们不愿意让孩子们遭受到注射疫苗的痛苦。现在新研发了一种喷雾型疫苗。由于孩子们很少会有严重的并发症,所以这种疫苗的研发与实施可能无助于公共卫生。
推理:
前提:小孩子很少患上流感带来的并发症
结论:用鼻喷雾型疫苗不能显著的有助于公共卫生
答案预估:
那些“鼻喷雾疫苗无益于公共卫生”的其它必要条件(常理上能保真推理出的一切结果)。
选项分析:
A选项:任何已经接种疫苗的人也可以成功的接受鼻喷雾这种方式。因为成年人本身就可以用注射疫苗,所以成年人是否可以接受鼻喷雾的方案并不是无助于公共卫生的必要条件。
B选项:新型疫苗在抵挡流感时和原有的疫苗是同种机理。治病机理和是否有助于公共卫生无关。
C选项:可接种型的疫苗是所有成人都能负担的。本选项和结论没有关系。
D选项:Correct. 成人的流感的并发症并非是被孩子传染的。新型疫苗无助于公共卫生的一个必要条件就是成年人不会被孩子感染。
E选项:鼻喷雾器对于成人没有作用。本选项错误解释同选项A。
顺序的因果逻辑:因为小孩子很少患上流感带来的并发症,所以用鼻喷雾型疫苗并不能显著的有助于公共卫生
前提(因)是:“小孩子很少患上流感带来的并发症”
结论(果)是:“用鼻喷雾型疫苗并不能显著的有助于公共卫生”
选题方式:因果推理只有一个评估方向,简而言之,即(由于本题问的是假设,所以答案选项需在“取非”后满足),反驳推理文段中的结论。B选项:新型疫苗在抵挡流感时和原有的疫苗是同种机理。治病机理和是否有助于公共卫生无关。【这个又增加了新的assumption,即致病机理一样可以一样effective。
D选项:Correct. 成人的流感的并发症并非是被孩子传染的。如果成人的并发症是孩子所传染的,那么,预防孩子得病就能很有效的控制成人流感的并发症。可以反驳结论。【运用negation的方法!!】
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论