Until mow, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available. Parents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated. A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children. However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

1. Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.

2. The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as jnjectable vaccines do.

3. The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.

4. Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.

5. The nasal spray vaccine is mot effective when administered to adults.

答案是D.看到有大虾这样分析:

短文的结论是小孩用滴鼻药对公众健康没什么太大的意义, 因为小孩得了感冒不会有并发症. 但如果成年人从小孩身上传染到了感冒怎么办呢? 他们还是会有并发症出现, 还是会影响公众健康. 从而否定了愿文的结论.

但是，如果通过取非分析的话，得出的结论就是：由于大人还是会有并发症出现, 还是会影响公众健康，从而这项措施没有带来significant health benifit,这明明是支持原文结论阿，请高手赐教。

短文的结论是小孩用滴鼻药对公众健康没什么太大的意义, 因为小孩得了感冒不会有并发症. 但如果成年人从小孩身上传染到了感冒怎么办呢? 他们还是会有并发症出现, 还是会影响公众健康. 从而否定了愿文的结论.

但是，如果通过取非分析的话，得出的结论就是：由于大人还是会有并发症出现, 还是会影响公众健康，从而这项措施没有带来significant health benifit,这明明是支持原文结论阿，请高手赐教。

不知道LZ问什么

原文LOR是：因为小孩不会有严重后果，所以这种针对小孩的药对公众健康没有大的好处。

D.去掉not后意为大人会从小孩那里传染得病，就是说小孩不用药会对公众健康产生影响；是对原文的削弱，因此是一个假设