* Until now only injectable vaccines against influenza have

[RonPurewal]

no. it only weakens the argument.

the argument is, basically, "Kids are major vectors of this disease. Therefore, if you immunize kids against it, its spread will be reduced significantly.

the choice you're talking about says "Actually, the role played by kids in spreading the disease IS SMALL"—in at least one sub-population (older adults),

this definitely weakens the argument above, because it indicates that immunizing children will have a LESSER effect.

(i'm sorry, but i can't understand your argument with the numbers.
this doesn't mean 'i don't see what you are doing with the numbers'. rather, i mean 'you've written that part in a way i can't read'.)

[RonPurewal]

if you are still confused here, just consider the same argument, with easier topics. in other words, make an analogy.

let's say there are some kids, ranging from 5 to 10 years old.
consider:
These kids are bored. If we give them toys, they will become less bored.

now let's say i tell you...
Very few 9- or 10-year-olds will be entertained by these toys. (...e.g., because the toys are made for younger kids)

it should be VERY clear that this statement weakens the argument.

it should also be VERY clear that it's absolutely impossible to say 'oh, that can actually strengthen the argument'. if you think you can do this by 'plugging in' numbers, then you are probably picking weirdly extreme numbers that distort the message.

[MdAbuAsad]

now let's say i tell you...
Very few 9- or 10-year-olds will be entertained by these toys. (...e.g., because the toys are made for younger kids).
Aren't the 9- or 10-year-olds kid? But, according to you, the kids are ranged in 5-10 yrs old (surmise)

Actually, I did not get this logic.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

right-- the 9- and 10-year-olds are among the 'kids' being discussed.

the point is that, if we know that the toys will NOT entertain this part of the group, that clearly serves to WEAKEN the overall claim that 'the group will be less bored'.
this is just plain common sense.
it's also common sense that there is no possible way for this statement to STRENGTHEN the claim!

i.e., if you think you've twisted the numbers in a way that makes this suddenly change from a 'weakener' into a 'strengthener'... then, well, something is wrong with how you chose the numbers.

[AbhijeetS317]

Ron is right! (as always)

Unless you put exceptionally large numbers for kids age 9 or 10 (like 100 kids each for age 9 and 10) and consider the remaining aged kids(5,6,7,8 year old) to be really low(say 3 kids for each age) , the point that Ron is making stands good. Don't plug weird numbers in CR.

[MdAbuAsad]

What does the option D mean?
D. Of the older adults who contract influenza, relatively few contract it from children with influenza.
Doesn't it mean: The decreases with influenza in children IS MORE THAN older adults?
Thanks.....

[RonPurewal]

option D means what it says:
* if you look at older people who have the flu, only a small number got it from children.
* thus, among older people who have the flu, MOST got it from sources OTHER THAN children.

this means that inoculating children will have only a very small effect on older people, since MOST of them (who got the flu from sources other than children) will not be affected at all.

[GoldfishZ773]

option D means what it says:
* if you look at older people who have the flu, only a small number got it from children.
* thus, among older people who have the flu, MOST got it from sources OTHER THAN children.

this means that inoculating children will have only a very small effect on older people, since MOST of them (who got the flu from sources other than children) will not be affected at all.

hi Ron,

could you kindly help explain why A is impossible?

if injecting and getting the nasal spray won't interfere with each's effect, then the children (probably would go for the injection when they grow up) wouldn't need to worry about complications of getting the 2 immunizations. Then once nasal spray becomes "widely available", kids would actually go for them more.

then the "the spread of influenza across the population" would be greatly reduced.

That's the first thought jumping into my mind, although I also found E plausible.. Could you help point a little?

Thanks much!

Rujin

[RonPurewal]

if injecting and getting the nasal spray won't interfere with each's effect, then the children (probably would go for the injection when they grow up) wouldn't need to worry about complications of getting the 2 immunizations. Then once nasal spray becomes "widely available", kids would actually go for them more.

^^ first -- and most importantly -- people don't reason like this. no one is going to decide against some medical treatment NOW because it might hypothetically complicate some other medical treatment 50 years from now!
so... that's enough to reject this reasoning altogether. remember, these problems should not require anything beyond everyday, COMMON human reasoning.

__

even if we take this line of thought into consideration, though -- which we shouldn't! -- it still doesn't hold up.

an "immunization", by definition, makes you immune to a disease. if someone has received an immunization and it's still effective, there is no need to receive another one.

therefore... even if we're thinking about the distant future, when a kid becomes an older adult... there are 2 possibilities:

1) the childhood immunization is still active in the adult's body.
...in this case, the adult wouldn't need another immunization, and so wouldn't get one. thus, no chance of interference.

2) the childhood immunization is no longer active in the adult's body.
...in this case, there's also no chance of interference, since the first immunization is gone.