Bold Faced : Experts pls help..I do not agree with OA !

[himu]

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA's general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

Question
The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate's argument?
Choices
A
The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B
The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.


C
The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

D
The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

[himu]

[spoiler]My ANS is B since- The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.

this is what I deduced before arriving at the ans but the OA is C
Source : Grockit.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]A
The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.
Incorrect; the first phrase is a pattern which the advocate accepts as GENERALLY true, but the second phrase says this general pattern will NOT apply here.
B
The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.

Your answer was incorrect
Incorrect. The first is a causal relationship, but the advocate predicts that it will NOT be repeated.
C
The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.
This is the credited response. Phrase #1 gives a generally true causal relationship (FDA testing produces safer drugs), but this relationship will not occur in a particular case where another variable is changed (i.e., if testing results in fewer required warnings). Phrase #2 explains that the usual effects (safer drugs) will not apply in such circumstances because of a REASON (i.e., because people will stop thinking about individual risks).
D
The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.
Incorrect. The first is an argument rather than proof, and the (usual) prediction of it (safer drugs) is NOT the prediction made in this case.
E
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.
Incorrect. The first is a general rule instead of an exception to it, and the second does not state the public health advocate's opinion (that would have to be that public health SHOULD be allowed to worsen).[/spoiler]

[[email protected]]

A good CR. Got puzzled and chose answer as A, however, the correct answer is C.

Agreed