PT152 S4 Q17 ExplanationHealth-care facilities have a duty

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   Health-care facility employees do not regard mandatory vaccination policies as violating

   Out of Scope: how they regard it We never talked about how employees would regard a mandatory vaccination policy. But we should negate this and consider if it would be an objection to the conclusion. If we say, "Some employees do consider mandatory vaccination as violating their rights", does that help us argue that these facilities do not need to institute mandatory vaccine policies? Not really. The argument is worried about protecting patient health. It doesn't really care if employees feel their rights are being violated, unless that manifests in some way that endangers patient health. If employees are mad but get vaccinated anyway, or they're mad and they quit out of refusal to get vaccinated, neither of those hurts the argument. The outrage of some employees would only be relevant to this argument if the angry employees "faked" being vaccinated but then still spread the flu to patients or if the employees took out their anger about the vaccine policy in ways that increased danger of harm to patients.

   4%
2. B

   Too Strong: the most harmful4% picked this

   Influenza viruses are the most harmful airborne pathogens to which patients risk exposure when entering

   This argument is definitely assuming that flu viruses pose some risk of unnecessary harm to patients, but it doesn't need to assume that flu viruses are the #1 most harmful airborne pathogen patients risk exposure to. If the flu viruses are the #2 most harmful airborne, the argument still makes just as much sense.

   4%
3. C

   Too Strong: most11% picked this

   Most patients in health-care facilities are not vaccinated

   The word "most" is wrong 99% of the time it shows up on Necessary Assumption because it's so specifically about this 50% threshold. Does the author need there to be at least 51% of patients unvaxxed for his argument to make sense? Or would the argument still make sense if only 49% of patients are unvaxxed? The argument would work either way, so while this answer would strengthen the argument, it isn't needed for the argument to work.

   11%
4. D

   Correct80% picked this

   Voluntary vaccination policies at health-care facilities would not adequately protect patients from the risks posed

   Why this is right

   If "most" is the least lovable word in Necessary Assumption, then "not" is the most lovable word. So many correct answers play a Defender role; they rule out a potential objection using the word "not/no". These are ripe for negating. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Voluntary vaccination policies would adequately protect patients from the risks of flu viruses"? Yes! That basically contradicts the conclusion, which was saying "these facilities need to make the vaccinations mandatory". It points to an alternative solution. They don't need to do mandatory vaccinations if voluntary vaccinations would provide adequate protection.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%
5. E

   Out of Scope: society / other contexts1% picked this

   Society has already accepted the idea of mandatory vaccination in

   (Man, it's fun to read these answers in a post-Covid era.) This argument wasn't talking at all about whether society has / hasn't accepted mandatory vaccinations in other contexts. If we negate this and say, "society hasn't already accepted this idea in other contexts", that doesn't inherently weaken the argument. The author can just say, "Okay, that's fine. I guess this will be the first context in which society accepts the idea. Or society can fail to accept it. Who cares. We only care about the facility upholding its duty to protect patients from unnecessary harm".

   1%