[This is an different CR question]Injectable vs. nasal spray

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors :)

This CR question is different from the one posted 3 years ago

(I considered it as [Version A])

http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/injectable-vaccines-against-influenza-t16090.html

The passages are somewhat different and the questions are different:

The one, one that I considered as [Version B]:

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?

A. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
B. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as injectable vaccines do.
C. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
D. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
E. The nasal spray vaccine is most effective when administered to adults.

OA: D (click & drag your mouse over this line to reveal)

--

My question is, why choice A in [Version B] is wrong? Because it is painless ≠ it is valuable?

--

Source: GMATPrep

Screenshot (from deepakcs2001) : http://postimg.org/image/1rs821gh0/

[RonPurewal]

the problem is asking for an assumption. an assumption is something that is absolutely necessary for the argument to work; choice A is not something that's absolutely necessary.

in fact, choice A is something that really has no value at all, because people who have received the injectable vaccine are already vaccinated! giving these people a second vaccine is not going to help anyone.

[RonPurewal]

also, why did you post the old version ("Version A")?

i think i must be missing some part of what you're asking, since that problem (which is a completely different task--it asks for new evidence that strengthens the argument, rather than for a required assumption) seems to be there for basically no reason.

[RonPurewal]

in any case, i've redacted "version A", so that the thread won't confuse to future readers.

if you actually do have a question about "version A", please post in another thread. forum rules--one question per thread.

(if these were two versions of the same question, then you might be justified in posting them in the same thread. however, as explained above, those two questions are two fundamentally different tasks; they are not related at all.)

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Ron! ;)

Thank you very much for your replies!

the problem is asking for an assumption. an assumption is something that is absolutely necessary for the argument to work; choice A is not something that's absolutely necessary.

I will keep this in mind!

in fact, choice A is something that really has no value at all, because people who have received the injectable vaccine are already vaccinated! giving these people a second vaccine is not going to help anyone.

Oops! I just realized I confused "who has received the injectable vaccine" with "who is able to receive", at the time I was working on this question.

--

also, why did you post the old version ("Version A")?

I'm sorry... for confusing you by posting two question in on post

I planned to emphasis the their differences.

--

3 years ago someone tried to ask questions about [Version B]

(http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/injectable-vaccines-against-influenza-t16090.html)

but people thought it is same as the [Version A]. Therefore, that thread was banned.

--

To make it easier to reading (to someone else who have questions on this version), I reformat my topic a little bit now ;)

[RonPurewal]

I'm sorry... for confusing you by posting two question in on post

I planned to emphasis the their differences.

i see what you mean here, but, trust me, that's a bad idea. if there are two similar-looking problems in one thread, it will very quickly become unclear which one any particular poster is talking about.

the problem is made worse by the fact that lots of people post without having read through the whole thread (so that there is often little, if any, continuity between consecutive posts).

[gbyhats]

the problem is made worse by the fact that lots of people post without having read through the whole thread (so that there is often little, if any, continuity between consecutive posts).

Haha, no problem! I will keep your words in mind!

[RonPurewal]

...well, either that or just follow the forum rules. (:
("one problem per thread" is clearly articulated in there)