Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument moves from describing the current vaccination situation (shots only, parents avoid for kids), introduces a new solution (nasal spray), but then concludes this solution won't provide significant public health benefits.
Main Conclusion:
Widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray would not result in significant public health benefit.
Logical Structure:
The author connects 'children seldom develop serious complications' directly to 'no significant public health benefit.' This assumes that preventing non-serious illness in children doesn't contribute meaningfully to public health - a key assumption the argument relies on.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe is true for their conclusion to hold. If we negate a correct assumption, it should make the argument fall apart.
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve frequency (children 'seldom' develop complications), scope ('widespread vaccination'), and magnitude ('no significant public health benefit'). The author makes a precise connection between low individual risk and minimal population-level benefit.
Strategy
Look for ways the conclusion could be wrong while keeping all the stated facts true. The author concludes that widespread vaccination of children won't provide significant public health benefits just because kids rarely get serious complications. What gaps exist in this reasoning? We need to find unstated beliefs the author relies on.
'Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal spray vaccine as well.' This deals with vaccine compatibility and safety, but the argument isn't about people switching between vaccines or receiving both types. The author's conclusion about public health benefits doesn't depend on whether people can safely use both vaccines. This is irrelevant to the core reasoning.
'The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.' The argument doesn't rely on how the vaccines work mechanistically. Whether they use the same biological pathway or completely different approaches doesn't affect the author's reasoning about public health benefits. The effectiveness is already stated as a given fact.
'The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.' Cost considerations aren't part of the author's reasoning. The argument focuses on the effectiveness and public health impact of child vaccination, not on economic barriers to adult vaccination. The author's conclusion would hold regardless of vaccine pricing.
'Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.' This is the key assumption. The author concludes that vaccinating children won't provide significant public health benefits because children rarely get serious complications. But if children are the main source of flu transmission to adults (who DO get serious complications), then preventing flu in children would protect vulnerable adults. This would make child vaccination extremely beneficial for public health, contradicting the author's conclusion.
'The nasal spray vaccine is not effective when administered to adults.' The argument already tells us the nasal spray is effective for children, but doesn't discuss adult effectiveness. Even if it worked for adults too, this wouldn't change the author's reasoning about whether vaccinating children specifically provides public health benefits.