I do not quite see why D is wrong. If the health problems developed after receiving vaccinations have been more serious than the health problems the vaccines were intended to prevent, doesn't that mean the health problems developed were not the same disease the vaccine were intended for and thus they were coincidences?
In the correct answer C, does comparing the likelihood of developing health problems after to "before" receiving vaccination a little bit out of scope, since the stimulus only talks about what happens after receiving vaccination.
Thank you for your help in advance.
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- GeneW
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 45
- Joined: October 11th, 2012
-
- dvo
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 2
- Joined: December 04th, 2013
Re: Q4 - Physician: Stories of people developing
The Physician’s argument is that with the millions of people being vaccinated each year, it is expected that some will develop health problems purely by coincidence shortly after receiving vaccinations.
We want something that will strengthen the fact that if people get sick after getting the vaccine, more likely than not, it’s a coincidence.
D says that the health problems people develop shortly after receiving vaccinations have been more serious than the health problems that the vaccines were intended to prevent.
This does nothing to strengthen the argument. It’s only saying that in some instances where people became ill after they got the vaccine, the illness was more serious than what the vaccine intended to treat. It doesn’t help us establish coincidence. Let’s say a person gets vaccinated for the flu and shortly after, she suffers heart failure. This conforms with what D says because generally speaking, heart failure (the health problem developed after vaccination) is more serious than the flu (the health problem the vaccine is supposed to treat). While it could be the case that it’s entirely coincidental, it is ALSO possible that the vaccine caused her to have heart failure. D doesn’t lend more weight to one possibility or the other, and thus does not strengthen the argument.
On the other hand, C strengthens the argument because IF people are no more likely, on average, to develop serious health problems shortly after receiving vaccinations than shortly before vaccinations, then this shows that vaccines generally does have effect on a person’s tendency to develop serious health problems after vaccination. You can better see the strength of this statement by considering if this wasn’t true. IF people are MORE likely, on average, to develop serious health problems after receiving vaccinations than shortly before vaccinations, then this would show that vaccines indeed does affect your tendency to develop a serious health problem and thus, you becoming seriously ill after vaccination is not likely to be a coincidence.
I hope that helps!
We want something that will strengthen the fact that if people get sick after getting the vaccine, more likely than not, it’s a coincidence.
D says that the health problems people develop shortly after receiving vaccinations have been more serious than the health problems that the vaccines were intended to prevent.
This does nothing to strengthen the argument. It’s only saying that in some instances where people became ill after they got the vaccine, the illness was more serious than what the vaccine intended to treat. It doesn’t help us establish coincidence. Let’s say a person gets vaccinated for the flu and shortly after, she suffers heart failure. This conforms with what D says because generally speaking, heart failure (the health problem developed after vaccination) is more serious than the flu (the health problem the vaccine is supposed to treat). While it could be the case that it’s entirely coincidental, it is ALSO possible that the vaccine caused her to have heart failure. D doesn’t lend more weight to one possibility or the other, and thus does not strengthen the argument.
On the other hand, C strengthens the argument because IF people are no more likely, on average, to develop serious health problems shortly after receiving vaccinations than shortly before vaccinations, then this shows that vaccines generally does have effect on a person’s tendency to develop serious health problems after vaccination. You can better see the strength of this statement by considering if this wasn’t true. IF people are MORE likely, on average, to develop serious health problems after receiving vaccinations than shortly before vaccinations, then this would show that vaccines indeed does affect your tendency to develop a serious health problem and thus, you becoming seriously ill after vaccination is not likely to be a coincidence.
I hope that helps!
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q4 - Physician: Stories of people developing
Great explanation, Dvo!
The physician’s final conclusion is that we don’t need to worry about vaccines causing health problems. Why? The health problems people get after vaccines are a coincidence!
(C) strengthens. As Dvo explained above, this answer choice reinforces the coincidental relationship between health problems and vaccinations. After all, "before" a vaccination means "without" a vaccination. So patients face just as high a likelihood of getting sick without a vaccination as with one.
(D) doesn’t strengthen. GeneW, you’re right that this answer choice implies that the illnesses people get after vaccinations are different than the ones they meant to vaccinate against. But that doesn’t matter"”note that the argument doesn’t concern whether, say, a tetanus shot causes tetanus. The argument concerns whether a tetanus shot causes serious illness. Maybe the tetanus shot prevents tetanus but causes cancer. It’s not really safe then, is it? (D) doesn’t strengthen the coincidental connection between vaccination and illness in general.
(A) is also tempting, since it might suggest that the evidence linking vaccinations to serious illness is weak. But recent evidence isn’t necessarily poor evidence. (A) is neutral.
(B) is irrelevant. People who are NOT vaccinated? What about those who ARE vaccinated? Are they safe or not?
(E) is out of scope. It concerns "other medications" rather than "vaccinations."
Hope that helps!
The physician’s final conclusion is that we don’t need to worry about vaccines causing health problems. Why? The health problems people get after vaccines are a coincidence!
(C) strengthens. As Dvo explained above, this answer choice reinforces the coincidental relationship between health problems and vaccinations. After all, "before" a vaccination means "without" a vaccination. So patients face just as high a likelihood of getting sick without a vaccination as with one.
(D) doesn’t strengthen. GeneW, you’re right that this answer choice implies that the illnesses people get after vaccinations are different than the ones they meant to vaccinate against. But that doesn’t matter"”note that the argument doesn’t concern whether, say, a tetanus shot causes tetanus. The argument concerns whether a tetanus shot causes serious illness. Maybe the tetanus shot prevents tetanus but causes cancer. It’s not really safe then, is it? (D) doesn’t strengthen the coincidental connection between vaccination and illness in general.
(A) is also tempting, since it might suggest that the evidence linking vaccinations to serious illness is weak. But recent evidence isn’t necessarily poor evidence. (A) is neutral.
(B) is irrelevant. People who are NOT vaccinated? What about those who ARE vaccinated? Are they safe or not?
(E) is out of scope. It concerns "other medications" rather than "vaccinations."
Hope that helps!
3 posts Page 1 of 1