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。
背景:家长不愿让自己的孩子接种I的疫苗。但是更容易得i的大人会接种疫苗。
目前,一种新型的对儿童有效的鼻喷雾疫苗出现了。
Argument:
原因:小孩很少会develop serious complications from influenza,很少出现I综合症
结论:推广针对儿童的鼻喷雾疫苗不会有显著的社会效果。
假设?
D:取非:大人得病主要是被生病的小孩传染,削弱,因为如果大人会被影响,那么小孩就算很少得病,也需要接种新型疫【说明小孩接种疫苗很有必要,新型喷雾会有很好的社会效益】
E:取非:新型喷雾对大人也有用,无关,因为本文在讨论小孩很少得病和针对儿童的疫苗的推广不会有明显的社会效益的因果关系问题
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论