Question Description
The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?a)Prob)Againstc)Neutrald)DeflectiveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.