CR-An unknown simian virus

I actually agree with your reasoning (in large part). I don't think this is a particularly well-written question. (By the way, ALWAYS LIST YOUR SOURCE!! That way other students can get information on which sources are high-quality).

The conclusion of this argument is: if an outbreak occurs again, is likely to cause more deaths than has any other previous virus.

We're given information about the mortality rate (nearly half) and the time frame (36 hours) of the outbreak in this particular town. It would be reasonable to conclude that a larger outbreak would be devastating. The logical leap, however, is that we can compare the NUMBER of people who would die from this disease to the number who have died from ANY OTHER DISEASE, ever.

If we want to WEAKEN this argument, we need to cast doubt on the either the fact that it will affect large numbers of people, or the comparison to other diseases.

A) I'm with you - I do think that this weakens the comparison of this disease to any other disease. The issue, though, is that it doesn't address NUMBER. Perhaps only a small number of people have contracted this disease, in which case 75% would not be MORE people than will die of this simian virus.

B) irrelevant to our ability to compare. Were those outbreaks worse than this one?

C) This definitely weakens the idea that a large number of people will be affected (though it doesn't address the comparison issue. Not that a right answer has to perfectly address everything).

D) Number of people who died initially is irrelevant to the number who might die if the disease spread elsewhere.

E) This says nothing about whether this particular disease will be particularly destructive.

Hi Minnie - following up. Could you please post your source?

That's all I meant - what company you got the question from.

Thanks!