kopparapui wrote:Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

I dont have the answer. My choice is D. Please discuss and confirm the right choice

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

The argument states that a new drug that can save the lives of many people suffering from heart attacks before they reach the hospital, has been prepared. It assumes that the drug can be administered by any one before the patient reaches the hospital.

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. --> Targets the potential assumption. Weakens.

(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time --> Strengthens. If heart attack victims die before they reach a hospital, then this should be a good idea.

(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic --> Strengthens by stating the assumption. Opposite of A.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots. --> Irrelevant. The argument is about the new agent only.

(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. --> Irrelevant. The argument is about heart attacks only

kopparapui wrote:Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. => MUST BE is the keywords in this choice. The patient must be brought to the hospital to ask the doctor whether this drug can be used. So, the situation is not changed compare to the time before the drug was discovered. So, this is weaken choice.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots => This is out of scope. We are talking only about new drug. Not others. If we talk about other ones. The argument still stands because the new drug is still effective.