Parallel reasoning

Are you sure this question is correct??
Because answer seems so weird

(C) seems fine. Dr.A says that the new influenza vaccine is useless but does not provide any justification as to why it is useless. (C) follows the same reasoning.


hope this helps!

Answer seems elusive, but below is my reasoning.
Dr. A says "Vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous." He refutes the study saying "the vaccine is worthless." There is no justification or reasoning involved in the thought.

A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
Vaccine is considered unsafe due to past experiments done on patient. can't be answer.

(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.
Milk can't be bought because there is no trust. Lack of trust is justification here. can't be answer.

(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
How it is effective than other? It is not given. Just view would not be sufficient. It is same as saying "Vaccine is dangerous and worthless". This can be the answer.

(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.
Vim is good, because it is recommended by Doctors. Can not be answer.

(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.
Completely different views.

C is more probable answer.

still dint understand..
ny1 pls?

There is no evidence why the vaccine should be worthless, only dr A's words.

The same is true about statement C - the tennis balls are the best because they are the most effective - no support, only a statement.

Check: Do the other answer choices provide any examples for what they claim?