Critical Reasoning

Alonso : the introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested.

The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.

The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.

The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.

The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.

Please explain your answer and also include explanation for B and D if one of these is not your answer. I have been wary of using word clues in choosing CR answers.. example "some" in choice B. Also I believe, in assumption questions anything with "at least" is more likely to be correct. Any thoughts on this would also be appreciated.

OA: ..A..

B is weakening the argument. It means that social impact is not reliable to decide its relation with "introduction of a new drug" because the social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.

In D,even if new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested, both medicine can have different applications. For example one should be applied externally to cure disease X and another should be taken as a capsule to cure disease Y.Similarity in chemical compostion does not add much to the conclusion.

Whats the OA?

Premise: The social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear.
Gap:
Conclusion: Pace of introducing new drugs to market should be slowed.

As you can see, this statement is lack of information which connects premise and conclusion.
If we put choice A) into the gap it become more clear:

Premise: The social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear.
Gap: The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested.
Conclusion: Therefore, pace of introducing new drugs to market should be slowed.

OA is E.

"Smackmartine" and "Bek" have this one covered!

Exactly as Bek has said the fact that the particular antihistamine's social impacts are unknown is supposed to mean that we should slow the introduction of new drugs in general. So the antihistamine is supposed to give us evidence about new drugs in general. How can this be? How can one drug being poorly understood allow us to make a conclusion about drugs in general? Only if that one drug can be shown to tell us something about all drugs. So if the new antihistamine is better known that the others drugs and it is poorly understood then they must really be poorly understood!

Smackmartine has covered B and D very well...

Why is B wrong?.

B is wrong because we need to get from the evidence that this one antihistamine is poorly all the way to the ridiculous conclusion that we need to slow down the introduction of drugs to the marketplace IN GENERAL.

Meaning that we are using this one drug to someone say something about all drugs. Now we need something that allows us to do that. A works because suddenly this one drug that is not well understood is better understood than most. So we can use the antihistamine to stand in for most drugs. So it goes, antihistamine poorly understood but better than most drugs -- so must drugs are poorly understood.

Choice B does not accomplish this. B would be a better answer for an assumption question. It does not work as a strengthen answer because to say that the "social impact of SOME of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood" does not give you a reason to delay the introduction of the drugs in general. Maybe one thousand drugs are out there on the market and the impact of 10 (some) is poorly understood. Does this mean we should slow down in general?

Also, and this gets into the theory of critical reasoning, but B is an answer choice that ignores the evidence in the argument. The main evidence here is the antihistamine. That is the one thing that we actually know. Choice B does not reference this at all.

You should be wary of answer choices that ignore the evidence that you have been given. After all when you strengthen an argument you are really strengthening THE LINK BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE GIVEN AND THE CONCLUSION.

Glad you asked because that really gave me a chance to put some information out...

what? wrote:Alonso : The introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested.

(B) The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.

(C) The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.

(D) The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.

(E) The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.

Could verbal expert help to explain why answer choice E is incorrect? I am struggling with this answer choice.