PT106.S2.Q7 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

The author concludes that it’s safer for dogs to get the vaccine than to skip it. She supports this by saying that the vaccine is almost 100% effective at preventing the disease. Also, the risk of death from the vaccine is 1 in 5,000, whereas 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die.

For the vaccine to be more beneficial than costly, the author must assume that the disease is fairly common. While 1 in 5,000 vaccinated dogs die, and 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die, we don’t know how many dogs will actually get the disease in the first place.

She also assumes that her argument applies to any dog, without considering how the disease or vaccine might affect different breeds or dogs differently.

She also overlooks any unaddressed costs of getting the vaccine, or any unaddressed costs or benefits of not getting it.

Irrelevant— the author only addresses deaths from this particular disease and vaccination. The number of dogs that die each year from everything else is not relevant to her argument.

Irrelevant— the author is only discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine among dogs. How other animals might be affected by the disease or the vaccine doesn’t matter here.

Irrelevant— like (D), the author is only concerned with the number of dogs that die each year from the particular disease in question. She doesn’t address the dangers or mortality rates of any other diseases.

Irrelevant— like (C), the author’s argument only addresses the disease in question. It doesn’t matter how likely a dog might be to contract some other kind of disease.

If the likelihood of catching the disease is high, getting the vaccine may indeed be more beneficial, since the risk of death from the vaccine is much lower than from the disease. But if the likelihood is low, the added risk of vaccination might be more costly overall.

PrepTest 106 - Section 2 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action