I would go with E

The argument gives the information that out of every 50 dogs one will die. therefore, we need to know the likelihood or the probability of an unvaccinated dog getting the disease.

Hi Vikas,

The answer is correct, but I don't follow the logic. Can you please explain in detail?

Thanks

Ok let me try again

The argument is talking and gives information about the following things:

1. One out of every 50 dogs dies because of the disease
2. Vaccine is a virtual 100% cure for the disease
3. Vaccine has a death rate as well i.e. one death per 5000 vaccines
4. It is safer for a dog to receive a vaccine than not to receive it

So as you can see (from above) that the argument gives a lot of info about vaccine and also that one out of 50 dogs die if they are not vaccinated.

In order to evaluate the argument you would need to know - what is the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease.

Scenario 1 - Let's say 1 in 10000 dogs catches this disease, then vaccinating all the dogs is by no means a practical solution because 1 in 5000 dogs can die after vaccination.

Scenario 2 - Let's say 1 in 10 dogs contract that disease and you already know that 1 out of 50 dogs will die. Therefore the dogs should be vaccinated.

Therefore in order to evaluate the argument you need to know the likelihood, percentage or probability of the unvaccinated dogs contracting the disease.

punitkaur wrote:Hi Vikas,

The answer is correct, but I don't follow the logic. Can you please explain in detail?

Thanks

got it . thanks for the explanation!

Nice Explanation..