Question

Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use at the previous vaccines.
The public health official’s statements, if true, best support which of the following as an inference?

• A. Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease.
• B. Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.
• C. Tacitus’ Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
• D. No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus’ Disease or Salicetiococcus.
• E. The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus’ Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.

Answer 1

The correct option is E The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus’ Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.

The public official’s stance is that, since the disease is no longer in the state, health agencies can stop giving the vaccines. Even though this is flawed argument, the question has asked us to assume it as true. The public official has gone to mention about the cost cutting. So the only reasonable explanation is cost cutting which is given in option (E).