Several inexpensive new vaccines have recently been developed that may

Agree to discard option A and B, since they are strengthening the conclusion, and we have to find an answer that undermines the conclusion or that has no bearing on it (since this q is a strengthen except). But I really don't get what are the strong grounds to discard options C, D and E, especially D and E

C. The diarrhea that is a side effect of these vaccines is no more life threatening than the skin reactions that are a side effect of these vaccines.
As you said, this option is stated in the argument. Is neither strengthening nor weakening it, and has no bearing on the conclusion

D. In treating patients with intense diarrhea as a side effect of one of these vaccines, it is sometimes necessary to resort to I.V. hydration.
The same here, no bearing on the conclusion

E. All of the recently developed new vaccines have shown the same incidence of intense diarrhea as a side effect.
I understand per this choice, that we have no option, all the new vaccines produce diarrhea, so this choice is almost the same as C, is neither strengthening nor weakening the conclusion

Can someone who got this right explain a little bit further?

Thanks!

Several inexpensive new vaccines have recently been developed that may help eliminate malaria, a disease that is believed to kill more than 2 million people worldwide each year. All of these vaccines, however, can sometimes produce acute, albeit short-lived and rarely fatal, side effects, the most unpleasant of which are intense diarrhea and severe skin reactions. Countries with the highest incidence of malaria should begin implementing as soon as possible a vaccination program using the vaccine that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect.

Each of the following, if true, gives support to the recommendation above, EXCEPT:
A. The severe skin reactions caused by the new vaccines are rated as slightly more unpleasant by those who have experienced them as compared to the intense diarrhea.-- The reasoning provided below, hence support
B. The new vaccine that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect costs approximately the same per dose as the other new vaccines.-- ruling out one of the probable options which can weaken the usage of the stated vaccines
C. The diarrhea that is a side effect of these vaccines is no more life threatening than the skin reactions that are a side effect of these vaccines.--The reasoning provided below, hence support
D. In treating patients with intense diarrhea as a side effect of one of these vaccines, it is sometimes necessary to resort to I.V. hydration.-- No impact, hence this is the answer
E. All of the recently developed new vaccines have shown the same incidence of intense diarrhea as a side effect. The reasoning provided below, hence support , additionally any vaccine will result into the same incidence of intense diarrhea as a side effect, so deciding factor can be the skin side effects.

// conclusion is clearly based on using the vaccines which have shown lowest incidence of skin reactions. But in premise it has been stated that most unpleasant side effects are diarrhea and severe skin reactions. So our conclusion somewhere lies with an assumption that diarrhea doesn't cause so severe effects to be taken into account while implementing the vaccine.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong

the conclusion says that lets use the vaccines with the lowest skin reactions- hence they have made skin reactions as a benchmark. but A clearly says that it cannot be used as a benchmark cus Diarrhoea is more than skin reactions. How does this strengthen the conclusion!!!

HI Mohnish,

The Passage Says:
2 side effects - Skin Irritation & Diarrhoea
Choose that with less instances of Skin Irritation

A says:
Skin irritation is considered worse than Diarrhoea

This seems consistent to me - that you should minimise the symptom that people think is worse.

Or do you disagree?

All the best

James

Conclusion: Countries should use a vaccination program that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect.

Answer: To pick a choice which DOES NOT explain (directly or indirectly) why Countries should use a vaccination program that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect. In other words, a choice which can actually pin point either (1) side effects of skin reactions are worse than diarrhea, or (2) there are varied incidences (not same no. of incidences) of skin reaction as a side effect in different vaccines.

A. The severe skin reactions caused by the new vaccines are rated as slightly more unpleasant by those who have experienced them as compared to the intense diarrhea. Explains point (1)
B. The new vaccine that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect costs approximately the same per dose as the other new vaccines. Explains point (2) - It says the vaccine that has the lowest incidence: suggests that there are vaccines with more incidences.
C. The diarrhea that is a side effect of these vaccines is no more life threatening than the skin reactions that are a side effect of these vaccines. Explains point (1)
D. In treating patients with intense diarrhea as a side effect of one of these vaccines, it is sometimes necessary to resort to I.V. hydration. Explains neither (1) nor (2), hence the Answer
E. All of the recently developed new vaccines have shown the same incidence of intense diarrhea as a side effect.[/quote] Explains point (2) - It says that incidence of intense diarrhea is same in all vaccines, leaving a choice for us to assume that there are varied incidences of skin reaction.

Several inexpensive new vaccines have recently been developed that may help eliminate malaria, a disease that is believed to kill more than 2 million people worldwide each year. All of these vaccines, however, can sometimes produce acute, albeit short-lived and rarely fatal, side effects, the most unpleasant of which are intense diarrhea and severe skin reactions. Countries with the highest incidence of malaria should begin implementing as soon as possible a vaccination program using the vaccine that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect.

Each of the following, if true, gives support to the recommendation above, EXCEPT:

a)The severe skin reactions caused by the new vaccines are rated as slightly more unpleasant by those who have experienced them as compared to the intense diarrhea.
b)The new vaccine that has shown the lowest incidence of severe skin reactions as a side effect costs approximately the same per dose as the other new vaccines.
c)The diarrhea that is a side effect of these vaccines is no more life threatening than the skin reactions that are a side effect of these vaccines.
d)In treating patients with intense diarrhea as a side effect of one these vaccines, it is sometimes necessary to resort to I.V. hydration.
d)All of the recently developed new vaccines have shown the same incidence of intense diarrhea as a side effect.


__________________________________
So, I understand that we need an answer that does NOT support the argument, the correct answer as per Kaplan is D, and I do understand why it is correct. But I initially chose B, can someone explain why C and B are incorrecT?

in b- it basically says that both vaccines cost the same hence, you are not supporting the decision to buy one vs the other. Is my reasoning correct?? given this is an except question we just need to find 4 answers that DO support the argument and my POE we will arrive at the answer. I do not see how B and C support the argument. In B, how can a statement that says that both vaccines cost the same support the decision to buy the vaccine with lowest incidence of skin reactions?

best
Oloman

Hi

First of all. please, read the rules for posting in verbal section inasmuch the title of the post must be the first phrase of the question, itself

Back to your question: you need to find an answer that not weaken or strengthen the stimulus.i.e. a choice that DOES NOT show some relation to the side effects.

Only d shows this: how is cured the diarrhea does not affect the argument at stake. SO D is the correct answer.

Side note: this kind of question EXCEPT could be really confusing due to the nature that you must find an answer out of scope whereas in general the out of scope answers are the first you eliminate from the ball park

Hope this helps

regards

Hi,
We have to check the options that do not support the argument main point / conclusion.
The argument talks about vaccine and argues that country should start implementing the vaccine that shows lowest incidence of sever skin reactions as a side effect. Hence we have to choose an option that does not support above written line.

Option B supports the claim that country should start implementing the vaccine that shows lowest incidence of sever skin reactions. If all the new vaccines costs the same cost per does then why the country will not choose the vaccine that fight for sever skin reactions, which has the most unpleasant side effects. Hence its supporting the claim and could not be the answer.
Option C states diarrhea has no more life threatening than the skin reactions. And par the argument, it shows there are two most unpleasant side effects 1) diarrhea 2) severe skin reactions. And diarrhea is not much life threatening than the skin reactions then why not the country will start implementing the vaccine that reduces the severe skin reactions. Hence its supporting the argument. Thus, this option can not be the answer.

Hoped this helped you...

+1 kudos if it helped you

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.