- Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:54 pm
#77550
Hi Lenihil,
Let's start by looking at the argument in the stimulus. It says that Asthmagon should be banned because some patients suffered serious side effect. We want to weaken the conclusion that Asthmagon should be banned. Before we look at the answer choices, we want to prephrase---to think about what the correct answer choice should do.
The generic answer is that the correct answer choice should hurt the conclusion. Here though, we can get a bit more specific. We are likely looking either for something that gives us more benefits for Asthmagon to offset the risk of side effects, or something that makes the side effects not as much of a risk. Basically we are looking for something that would make the risk of side effects worth it because of the benefits of Asthmagon.
Answer choice (A) would strengthen the conclusion that Asthmagon should be banned because it suggests that Asthmagon use correlates with an increase in deaths from asthma. That's an additional mark against Asthmagon, so it would strengthen our conclusion, not weaken it.
Answer choice (E) works similarly. It gives another reason we might want to ban Asthmagon. It can cause increased severity of asthma attacks in some users. That strengthens the conclusion that we should ban the medication.
Answer choice (D) is our weaken answer. It gives us a reason that the risks of severe side effects shouldn't result in a ban. It doesn't say the side effects are not severe. It doesn't say that there are additional benefits. It says that the side effects are predictable, and thus could be avoided. By saying all the severe side effects occurred in patients with a specific comorbid condition, we weaken the idea that the medication should be fully banned. Those without the condition should be safe to take the medication. The answer choice weakens the conclusion by telling us how the side effects can be avoided.
Hope that helps!
Rachael
