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.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate's argument?

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

What do you understand from the argument above, and what is your answer?