But wouldnt this option be agreed to by the Dr laforte because he stresses that the basic care equality is more important and mentions that to deny the basic medical care on the basis of the income is absolutely bad.
Sounds like you understand Laforte's position well. But let's be careful in interpreting/paraphrasing (A). (A) reads:
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
or (rephrasing using the fact that a<b is the same as b>a):
People's rights are violated more
when they are denied an available medical treatment they need on noneconomic grounds than when they are denied such treatment because they lack the means pay for it.
Would Laforte agree with that? Given that Laforte wants people who can't afford certain medical treatments to still have access to them--he views that as a basic right--would he say "yes, being denied treatment for noneconomic grounds is worse than being denied treatment because you can't pay for it."?
this question sounded to be more like a negative main point question.
Sorry, a what?
I guess a "negative" main point question would be asking for the opposite of one arguer's main point. That would definitely be an interesting question type but I've yet to see it
Actually, here we have two arguers, and the right answer states the point at issue between them. Kaplan calls this type of question (surprise) "point at issue." One cool and helpful thing to note about this type of question is that (a) could have been rephrased to:
(A) People's rights are violated MORE when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
and it would still be correct. It's just that in this case, Laforte would agree and Schilling disagree. But it would still express the point at issue.
Isnt D a better choice because A mentions a scenario which can be termed as extra information for the argument.
(A) mentions a scenario
that is not explicitly mentioned in the argument, yes. However, the scenario (A) contemplates relates completely to the ideas
in both speakers' statements and not to any foreign ideas. (A) discusses a scenario comparing which reason--economic or noneconomic--for denial of medical treatment amounts to a greater breach of rights. Those ideas lie flatly within the scope of the argumentative exchange between the two speakers.